People who are banned

[Pbassmanca]

Bump.

Next wrong answer will reveal another hint.

Jimi Hendrix was on TalkBass?

 

[Old Garage-Bander]

Jimi Hendrix was on TalkBass?

Good answer. If only he had access to an IBM mainframe, and a stack of punch cards?
Gawd. Imagine posting like that? It would take hours just to hit the LIKE button.

 

[Old Garage-Bander]

One more wrong guess will reveal the true answer.

 

[japhy4529]

I'm under the influence of caffeine as we speak!

Ditto!

Jimi Hendrix was on TalkBass?

Yes, a very early, DARPA/Douglas Engelbart version of TB. It was text only and Jimi had to use a black & white tv for a monitor and a modified typewriter for a keyboard. Hey, he did play bass on a number of his studio tracks...

 

[japhy4529]

One more wrong guess will reveal the true answer.

They're all members of the Illuminati?

 

[Ross W. Lovell]

I'd like to suggest having a section here that lists the people who are banned, and why. Not in thread form where people can comment, as that would go downhill real quickly - but a listing and explanation. To me that only seems right.

Many of us here form friendships/relationship with other members, and then if or when they're suddenly cut, it's over. And we have to then walk on eggshells trying to find out why.

I have some other ideas about this feature, and more ideas on why I think it would benefit the forum in many ways, but I'm tapping this out on my phone (which I hate doing), and just want to get the ball rolling.

What does everyone else think? Pros? Cons? Suggestions on making it work well?

Rule 10. Don't rile anyone up?

Really, depends on whether one or both of us has not taken our meds.

The society in general is both more sensitive and less restrained in voicing their rights and opinions.

It used to be "I don't agree with that and here is why........".

Now it's "I'm triggered where's the Moderator?"

 

[Pbassmanca]

Ditto!


Yes, a very early, DARPA/Douglas Engelbart version of TB. It was text only and Jimi had to use a black & white tv for a monitor and a modified typewriter for a keyboard. Hey, he did play bass on a number of his studio tracks...

Oh.....right, yes, I believe I read in the World Book back in the 80's about this. I think DARPA had code named the project: "If low notes could talk".

 

[Old Garage-Bander]

Ditto!


Yes, a very early, DARPA/Douglas Engelbart version of TB. It was text only and Jimi had to use a black & white tv for a monitor and a modified typewriter for a keyboard. Hey, he did play bass on a number of his studio tracks...

Yes he did. I think All *Along the Watchtower* was one if them.
For a while, my avatar was Jimi playing bass.

 

[Old Garage-Bander]

They're all members of the Illuminati?

Oh good one. Of course, being it is the Illuminati, we will never know for sure.
However, much as with the Illuminati, you are the key to revealing the answer.
Groan alert. Prepare... scroll down........















What does KBD, Nobody and Jimi Hendrix all have in common?












They all burned their bridges.

 

[Pbassmanca]

Maybe Killed By Death will be resurrected in the future as "Revived by Life"?

 

[Joe Nerve]

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.

Can I offer a rebuttal without getting a warning ?

FWIW, while this may have been the most important thing on my "to do" list yesterday, I'm not as wrapped up in constituting a change here as some might think. I just think it would be a good idea considering all the questions about KBD (and where that thread wound up going), as well as others that keep reappearing (Jeff Berlin, Nobody, etc.). I didn't even know Juaqo XZVTIIM was banned. Thought he just left on his own accord. Anyhooo..... the only rebuttal I have is this, in regard to your first point.

I think warnings being private is a great idea. I wouldn't like my warnings to be pinned to my name, even though I'm pretty sure I don't have any . Once someone is banned though, that becomes a different story. Their name gets crossed out, and they get the BANNED stamp. That's a lot worse, IMO, than warnings and infractions connected to a name. And it raises definite questions for members.

As far as having friends here who's email addresses we don't have - there are more than a few people here I feel I've made real connections with who's info I don't have. I've shared some personal stuff with Slobake (as well as a few others) over the years, I'm pretty sure I have his info somewhere, but it might very well be in PM conversations we've had. Not that I think he'd ever get banned, but who knows. If it happened, and I couldn't find his email address - poof! I got kinda friendly with Two Fingers too, and when he got banned a month ago I though, ut oh!!!! I posted my email address for him to contact me, and he did - but not everyone here is as transparent on this forum. KBD for certain wasn't.

I haven't checked yet, but I'm going to guess most of the people who are claiming this is a bad or dumb idea are completely anonymous on TB. Which would make sense. I won't get into that though....

Lost my train of thought . And have songs I need to review. I'll just repeat myself. All I'm suggesting is a simple section in the members areas for banned (or possibly a more PC title -disabled accounts- ) where the members name is listed, the amount of time they're banned for, and the rule number(s) they broke. I originally suggested a link to thread that broke the camel's back, but that's probably not even necessary, and might cause unnecessary crap.

Final suggestion on this -WHICH I MUST ADMIT IS A GREAT ONE- is it could be something that appears for paying supporting members only. That adds incentive for joining up, plus keeps those in the doghouse anonymous to outsiders.

Rule 10. Don't rile anyone up?

Really, depends on whether one or both of us has not taken our meds.

The society in general is both more sensitive and less restrained in voicing their rights and opinions.

It used to be "I don't agree with that and here is why........".

Now it's "I'm triggered where's the Moderator?"

I had a really clever and funny response to this but after writing all the above, I forgot it. Oh hwell...

 

[DiabolusInMusic]

I get where Joe is coming from but, honestly, I don't think knowing the exact infractions would greatly benefit the site. If anything, it would create more resentment and hostility as people would then disagree with the listed reasons. The rules are there and they are, for the most part, reasonably enforced. Nobody here is getting a permanent ban for something unreasonable, the threshold is just too high. For those that do not offend, you get several warnings before you get a vacation from TB. Somebody has to take two 30-day vacations before they get a permanent one. If 30 days away does not make you re-think your behaviour, the permanent ban is only a matter of time. The only real benefit I can see from listing why people are banned is satisfying our own morbid curiousity.

 

[bolophonic]

I get where Joe is coming from but, honestly, I don't think knowing the exact infractions would greatly benefit the site. If anything, it would create more resentment and hostility as people would then disagree with the listed reasons. The rules are there and they are, for the most part, reasonably enforced. Nobody here is getting a permanent ban for something unreasonable, the threshold is just too high. For those that do not offend, you get several warnings before you get a vacation from TB. Somebody has to take two 30-day vacations before they get a permanent one. If 30 days away does not make you re-think your behaviour, the permanent ban is only a matter of time. The only real benefit I can see from listing why people are banned is satisfying our own morbid curiousity.

I agree 100%.

 

[bass12]

Disagree on this. I wouldn't call them friends in the same way as people I hang out with IRL, but I've come to care about some people I interacted with only through forums, and a couple times I've been unable to reach them post-ban, but would have liked to.

Fair enough.

 

[Ross W. Lovell]

I agree 100%.

Rule 10. As it applies to a permanent ban, seems out of proportion since "intent" is nebulous to define.

I have posted on another site I frequent a differing opinion than multiple people, who all had a different one from each other AND myself. Somehow, I was told the "conversation" should not be directed at one person. IT wasn't, it was addressed to all involved, nothing objectionable.

Asked the Moderator, how exactly my heading salutation, which is always "Greetings All" could be construed as "personal" on an open forum.

I was told I was being "difficult".

Left the group shortly thereafter, both our problems solved.

Since it is doubtful the Moderators read/ understand the exact content of our posts, they are likely going by certain words, phrases, etc.

I often wonder with regards to complaint, do they read the whole thread or just the posts between the one one who complained and the one who made the statement?

I also understand it's a thankless job being a Moderator.

 

[JMacBass65]

Can I offer a rebuttal without getting a warning ?

FWIW, while this may have been the most important thing on my "to do" list yesterday, I'm not as wrapped up in constituting a change here as some might think. I just think it would be a good idea considering all the questions about KBD (and where that thread wound up going), as well as others that keep reappearing (Jeff Berlin, Nobody, etc.). I didn't even know Juaqo XZVTIIM was banned. Thought he just left on his own accord. Anyhooo..... the only rebuttal I have is this, in regard to your first point.

I think warnings being private is a great idea. I wouldn't like my warnings to be pinned to my name, even though I'm pretty sure I don't have any . Once someone is banned though, that becomes a different story. Their name gets crossed out, and they get the BANNED stamp. That's a lot worse, IMO, than warnings and infractions connected to a name. And it raises definite questions for members.

As far as having friends here who's email addresses we don't have - there are more than a few people here I feel I've made real connections with who's info I don't have. I've shared some personal stuff with Slobake (as well as a few others) over the years, I'm pretty sure I have his info somewhere, but it might very well be in PM conversations we've had. Not that I think he'd ever get banned, but who knows. If it happened, and I couldn't find his email address - poof! I got kinda friendly with Two Fingers too, and when he got banned a month ago I though, ut oh!!!! I posted my email address for him to contact me, and he did - but not everyone here is as transparent on this forum. KBD for certain wasn't.

I haven't checked yet, but I'm going to guess most of the people who are claiming this is a bad or dumb idea are completely anonymous on TB. Which would make sense. I won't get into that though....

Lost my train of thought . And have songs I need to review. I'll just repeat myself. All I'm suggesting is a simple section in the members areas for banned (or possibly a more PC title -disabled accounts- ) where the members name is listed, the amount of time they're banned for, and the rule number(s) they broke. I originally suggested a link to thread that broke the camel's back, but that's probably not even necessary, and might cause unnecessary crap.

Final suggestion on this -WHICH I MUST ADMIT IS A GREAT ONE- is it could be something that appears for paying supporting members only. That adds incentive for joining up, plus keeps those in the doghouse anonymous to outsiders.




I had a really clever and funny response to this but after writing all the above, I forgot it. Oh hwell...

I'll just kinda second all of this.

It's a drag to drop in after a day or two, or after a few hours even, and all of the sudden see someone you enjoyed having around, warts and all, with the banned label. And knowing that you can't ask about it, you are just left wondering why, and wondering if it's temporary of permanent.

 

[petrus61]

I don't see the purpose of listing why someone was banned. The only person that has a right to know why a person was banned is the person who was banned, IMO. It's a private site whose rules supporting and non supporting members agree to when they choose to participate, one of those being that a mods decision isn't up for debate. I trust the moderators here and feel that if someone gets a ban (whether I agree with it or not), they probably had it coming. Does some part of me want to know about why some people get banned? Sure, if I value their input, but it doesn't keep me up at night. I suppose the type of personality that takes joy from all the sordid details of such things would care, but I like to think we're less a community of drama queens than that.

 

[KohanMike]

I was banned once from a site for complaining about how poorly they handled upgrading to a new forum system. So I created a new user account with a different user name and email address, they never were the wiser.

 

[Joe Nerve]

I don't see the purpose of listing why someone was banned. The only person that has a right to know why a person was banned is the person who was banned, IMO. It's a private site whose rules supporting and non supporting members agree to when they choose to participate, one of those being that a mods decision isn't up for debate. I trust the moderators here and feel that if someone gets a ban (whether I agree with it or not), they probably had it coming. Does some part of me want to know about why some people get banned? Sure, if I value their input, but it doesn't keep me up at night. I suppose the type of personality that takes joy from all the sordid details of such things would care, but I like to think we're less a community of drama queens than that.

I think people need to consider that not everyone on this forum interacts with people the same way.

To some this is a place to come for some info, chat, drop their $.02 here and there. They don't get as involved as others. I have forums I belong to where that's the case. I've been here though almost 20 years, have gotten involved with people, formed "internet" relationships, PMed with members regarding personal things. I think it's a different thing for us. If max2112 got banned from an Amazon writers forum I'm part of, I'd think "oh hwell" and it would be the end of the story. Not the case here. Which I think is a good thing. This forum it a cut above the rest for me, and for many others here. I feel that adding the section proposed (as I suggested it) would be offering additional respect to all members, including those banned. I don't see any negative to it at all, to be honest.

It could also be an offered as an option to those banned, if people are worried about that.

I know this isn't a democracy, I understand and I'm fine with that - but maybe it's something that should be put up for vote and discussion in another thread?

 

[guy n. cognito]

I just think it would be a good idea considering all the questions about KBD

Honestly, I'm not sure too many ate REALLY shocked that KBD was banned. Furthermore, even if you can't put it together, one can assume that he got ample chances....and blew them all.