People who are banned

[Old Garage-Bander]

Kelly Blue Book.
I imagine that's part of the business of Talkbass.
You type a thing. That thing flies off to something like an automated search engine which finds an ad that most closely matches what you typed. It knows your address and inserts the ad into the ad space on your TB page.
At the end of the month, some machine cuts a virtual check to TB, for a minute amount of money times every inserted ad. Consider how many times a day that happens across the TB membership, and CHA-CHING!

I will now type Dodge truck. Dodge truck. Let's see what happens.

And there it is. I reloaded the page and got an ad for Ram Trucks. (Ram is a Dodge truck name for the uninitiated.)

 

[Pbassmanca]

Nice. I'd like to say it was a typo, but I honestly thought I was reading "Bender" every time I saw your username

Oh my God! It's not Bender! I swear I've never noticed that it's bander. Well , time to book another trip to the shrink.......

 

[Old Garage-Bander]

Oh my God! It's not Bender! I swear I've never noticed that it's bander. Well , time to book another trip to the shrink.......

"These aren't the droids you're looking for."

I an OLD.
In my teens I played bass in a couple of GARAGE BANDS.

 

[BassUrges]

Please read the rules. You'll then know if huffing about "girls" playing "Squires" is an offense.

Yes, the key sentence is: "Moderator discretion applies." Which is fine, it's their sandbox.

But a mod could pretty easily decide that "girls" to refer to non-minors is sexist and demeaning. Or if enough people start reacting the way KbD did, it starts getting interpreted as an effort to "intentionally rile up" that group of posters. Now it's a whole new group of people getting warnings/bans.

So I don't think it's actually clear what is allowed and what is forbidden. I guess the rule is just "do what the mods say," which means that the rules aren't as comprehensive as you seem to think.

 

[Lobster11]

So I don't think it's actually clear what is allowed and what is forbidden. I guess the rule is just "do what the mods say," which means that the rules aren't as comprehensive as you seem to think.

I think the rules themselves are pretty clear, but of course they are subject to interpretation in specific instances by the mods. I don't see how it could be any other way: They can't give us a comprehensive list of every possible example of what constitutes "being disrespectful," for example. So yes, that leaves some ambiguity and you're right that you never know exactly where the lines are. But I also think that the system is pretty generous in terms of how many warnings one gets before being banned: You can step over the line numerous times before that happens, which provides us with plenty of opportunity to learn where the lines are.

 

[Old Garage-Bander]

Yes, the key sentence is: "Moderator discretion applies." Which is fine, it's their sandbox.

But a mod could pretty easily decide that "girls" to refer to non-minors is sexist and demeaning. Or if enough people start reacting the way KbD did, it starts getting interpreted as an effort to "intentionally rile up" that group of posters. Now it's a whole new group of people getting warnings/bans.

So I don't think it's actually clear what is allowed and what is forbidden. I guess the rule is just "do what the mods say," which means that the rules aren't as comprehensive as you seem to think.

It's not clear because you are, IMO, trying to make a mountain out if a mole hill.
You are making up way more "What-ifs" in trying to turn "girl" into a sexist statement, than what a mod would probably go through to bust someone for it.

"I saw a girl playing bass." Not a violation because neither you or the mod know the age of the "girl," or if she would be offended by being called a girl. Not a very good example of something that might cross a line. Heck, state laws across this country don't even agree on the age of majority in either males or females.

Yes the mods have some discretion in how they use the hammer. But I'd be really surprised if the mods don't have their own set of rules and guidelines for how and when they hammer down. I'd also be surprised if a mod was never hammered on here by the admins.

And if you have an issue with the discretion applied by a moderator, you have recourse.

Don't start nothin, won't be nothin.

 

[beaglesandbass]

Also, something I forgot to mention. Very rarely are warnings handed out without discussion. The majority are given because they are reported by another user. The posts are often discussed by several mods/admins before levying any punishment. So everything is usually reviewed and talked about by several mods.

 

[Pacman]

But a mod could pretty easily decide that "girls" to refer to non-minors is sexist and demeaning. Or if enough people start reacting the way KbD did, it starts getting interpreted as an effort to "intentionally rile up" that group of posters. Now it's a whole new group of people getting warnings/bans.

Infractions and bans can be appealed through the Help Desk. There are 3 admins who can override Mod actions, and often controversial bans are discussed with all Mods at length. It really is true - it's HARD to get banned here.

 

[Old Garage-Bander]

Infractions and bans can be appealed through the Help Desk. There are 3 admins who can override Mod actions, and often controversial bans are discussed with all Mods at length. It really is true - it's HARD to get banned here.

Hey Pacman! You gigging around here any time soon?

 

[Pacman]

Hey Pacman! You gigging around here any time soon?

Well, I did two shows this weekend I'm off next weekend to get my kid back to college, then the 15th and 16th I'm at Ameristar. Friday night is Quartus, Saturday night is The Six - hope to see you out there!

 

[BassUrges]

It's not clear because you are, IMO, trying to make a mountain out if a mole hill.

Well, I'm a lawyer, that's kind of my job.

No, wait. My actual job is to read rules and 1) try to explain them to my clients, 2) try to argue about them for the benefit of my clients. And in doing so, I have access to literally hundreds of years of "mod decisions" to explain and expand and clarify. There are canon lawyers who do the same thing within religions and--my personal favorite--golf lawyers who argue calls within the USGA, resulting in published decisions from the Supreme Court of Golf.

I'm not saying the mods are unfair, or the rules badly written, or that I don't understand why mod actions are private.

I'm saying the rules aren't actually comprehensive (because that's impossible) so 1) "read the rules" is an inadequate answer, and 2) transparency in mod decision making, which has obvious downsides, also has the upside of clarifying the rules where they are ambiguous.

 

[Ross W. Lovell]

Sorry Joe. Personally I think it's a bad idea because of the dark side of human nature - for some getting on the 'banned' list would become a badge of honor.

"Through my alcohol-fueled rage I have decided that this is the hill upon which I'm going to die - and here is the shrine in which I will be martyred."

I'm mostly reasonable, but this sounds ridiculous to me.

I'm guessing you are right though.

Never understood trying to "understand" why behavior in some people exists, this is why!

Seriously, I agree with you, NO SARCASM!!!

 

[Chris Fitzgerald]

In response to this latest tangent, the best i can say is that mods and admins do tend to discuss almost all reports before warnings are given out unless they are unbelievably flagrant - i.e. "shag you, mothershagger" and the like. As to the wording, mods try to adhere to the spirit of the rules. Some members like to push boundaries by adhering only to the letter of the rules and then crying foul when they get warned for violating the spirit of them.

This is where the moderator discretion applies, and I din't think that will be changing any time soon. Language will always leave loopholes no matter how explicit the language gets - see our country's tax code for an example. In the public sector, people pay legal experts to find ways around the rules that can't be prosecuted under the current language, and feel very clever when they find one they can exploit even while they know that the loophole in question is completely against the spirit of the law. Fortunately for us, we are a private site and can try to make the spirit of the law reasonably clear without making the letter of it the size of a Michener novel. Beyond that, moderator discretion applies.

 

[Ross W. Lovell]

In response to this latest tangent, the best i can say is that mods and admins do tend to discuss almost all reports before warnings are given out unless they are unbelievably flagrant - i.e. "shag you, mothershagger" and the like. As to the wording, mods try to adhere to the spirit of the rules. Some members like to push boundaries by adhering only to the letter of the rules and then crying foul when they get warned for violating the spirit of them.

This is where the moderator discretion applies, and I din't think that will be changing any time soon. Language will always leave loopholes no matter how explicit the language gets - see our country's tax code for an example. In the public sector, people pay legal experts to find ways around the rules that can't be prosecuted under the current language, and feel very clever when they find one they can exploit even while they know that the loophole in question is completely against the spirit of the law. Fortunately for us, we are a private site and can try to make the spirit of the law reasonably clear without making the letter of it the size of a Michener novel. Beyond that, moderator discretion applies.

Seems like you be getting political there Chris........

No issues....you guys have a large task, Thanks.

 

[twistd]

Well, I'm a lawyer, that's kind of my job.

No, wait. My actual job is to read rules and 1) try to explain them to my clients, 2) try to argue about them for the benefit of my clients. And in doing so, I have access to literally hundreds of years of "mod decisions" to explain and expand and clarify. There are canon lawyers who do the same thing within religions and--my personal favorite--golf lawyers who argue calls within the USGA, resulting in published decisions from the Supreme Court of Golf.

I'm not saying the mods are unfair, or the rules badly written, or that I don't understand why mod actions are private.

I'm saying the rules aren't actually comprehensive (because that's impossible) so 1) "read the rules" is an inadequate answer, and 2) transparency in mod decision making, which has obvious downsides, also has the upside of clarifying the rules where they are ambiguous.

I think you have to take the lawyer hat off. I view this community as a self policing state with a single all powerful judicial branch. No lawyers and juries allowed

What I think makes it harder for people, and as previously mentioned, is that violators tend to vanish with little trace. This is because a lot of the "offending content" was, surprise, surprise, "offensive", and had to be cleansed/deleted. I have seen this in action when all of a sudden you see someone with the ban hammer, and then search their postings. I also think it is hard, because many of the "characters" that have been banned, often added spice and humor to some threads, but often in violation of rules (trolling/disrespect,etc)

You have not been here very long, but I think you will find the moderation (judicial branch) to be very fair. I have learned a lot from this thread on the process, and it does help me understand the patterns I have seen of some of the eventual banishees.

 

[Lobster11]

Sometimes we get feedback about where the lines are when a mod posts in a thread to point out that the discussion is heading into dangerous territory. Usually that's enough for everyone know to back off without any formal warnings or points having to be issued. We can't expect mods to see such issues coming all the time, but I think it's really helpful when they do.

 

[Old Garage-Bander]

Well, I'm a lawyer, that's kind of my job.

No, wait. My actual job is to read rules and 1) try to explain them to my clients, 2) try to argue about them for the benefit of my clients. And in doing so, I have access to literally hundreds of years of "mod decisions" to explain and expand and clarify. There are canon lawyers who do the same thing within religions and--my personal favorite--golf lawyers who argue calls within the USGA, resulting in published decisions from the Supreme Court of Golf.

I'm not saying the mods are unfair, or the rules badly written, or that I don't understand why mod actions are private.

I'm saying the rules aren't actually comprehensive (because that's impossible) so 1) "read the rules" is an inadequate answer, and 2) transparency in mod decision making, which has obvious downsides, also has the upside of clarifying the rules where they are ambiguous.

USGA/R&A = Supreme Court of Golf.

I am not an attorney, but part of my job is to read and interpret federal regulations, specifically FCC regulations.
I then take appropriate actions or make recommendations based on my interpretation while also considering the opinions of others who have experience in dealing with such matters.

The biggest problem with the regulations in this field are that those who write them, continue to to try to fine tune them to include the newest latest "issue" at hand, while at the same time try to make the regulations apply to everyone equally. In a field where we have a great disparity amoung players that ranges from a single mom & pop operation, to multi-billion dollar conglomerates, it just does not work to try to tweak the rules to cover the "offense du jour."

Furthermore, the rules process takes years to makes changes. Whatever they were trying to pigeon hole at the time may not apply by the time it becomes law. This is why having broad rules along with measured interpretations works.

TB rules, somewhat like the US constitution are intentionally not filled with minutiae about every little thing.
If there is an issue, the mods as we have learned, and much like the higher courts of our land, discuss and apply the interpretation of the general rules to the situation at hand. If the interpretation and application of the rules is too heavy-handed, we as members of Talkbass or as citizens of the US have other means for dealing with that.

An extreamly complicated set of rules can only serve to make matters more confusing, in my opinion.
If the rules for Talkbass members, or for US citizens become way out of whack, it will eventually lead to a self correction that will ultimately be for the good of the whole, which is the how it should be. In a society, (quoting a famous, yet highly applicable movie line) "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one."

 

[BassUrges]

You have not been here very long, but I think you will find the moderation (judicial branch) to be very fair.

I don't believe I've said or suggested that they are unfair. Merely that "read the rules" isn't an adequate explanation as some seem to believe. I don't know if KbD's grammar trolling is the real issue or if he let loose with a "shag you mothershagger" rant when I wasn't looking. I skip probably 95% of threads, after all.

Now, it's fair to say I don't need to know, because I don't. I can just keep on going and listen to any warnings I get (none yet despite probably deserving it a few times).

But don't tell me it's obvious from the rules because it isn't.

 

[Ross W. Lovell]

USGA/R&A = Supreme Court of Golf.

I am not an attorney, but part of my job is to read and interpret federal regulations, specifically FCC regulations.
I then take appropriate actions or make recommendations based on my interpretation while also considering the opinions of others who have experience in dealing with such matters.

The biggest problem with the regulations in this field are that those who write them, continue to to try to fine tune them to include the newest latest "issue" at hand, while at the same time try to make the regulations apply to everyone equally. In a field where we have a great disparity amoung players that ranges from a single mom & pop operation, to multi-billion dollar conglomerates, it just does not work to try to tweak the rules to cover the "offense du jour."

Furthermore, the rules process takes years to makes changes. Whatever they were trying to pigeon hole at the time may not apply by the time it becomes law. This is why having broad rules along with measured interpretations works.

TB rules, somewhat like the US constitution are intentionally not filled with minutiae about every little thing.
If there is an issue, the mods as we have learned, and much like the higher courts of our land, discuss and apply the interpretation of the general rules to the situation at hand. If the interpretation and application of the rules is too heavy-handed, we as members of Talkbass or as citizens of the US have other means for dealing with that.

An extreamly complicated set of rules can only serve to make matters more confusing, in my opinion.
If the rules for Talkbass members, or for US citizens become way out of whack, it will eventually lead to a self correction that will ultimately be for the good of the whole, which is the how it should be. In a society, (quoting a famous, yet highly applicable movie line) "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one."

I use daily to work for a company that would not release memos more than so many lines. Their feeling if you can't condense it, it won't fly.

There is a state that allows only one bill per page, same thing. 2300 pages of HealthCare doesn't fly there either.

KISS?...........keep..it...simple...stupid.

 

[twistd]

I don't believe I've said or suggested that they are unfair. Merely that "read the rules" isn't an adequate explanation as some seem to believe. I don't know if KbD's grammar trolling is the real issue or if he let loose with a "shag you mothershagger" rant when I wasn't looking. I skip probably 95% of threads, after all.

Now, it's fair to say I don't need to know, because I don't. I can just keep on going and listen to any warnings I get (none yet despite probably deserving it a few times).

But don't tell me it's obvious from the rules because it isn't.

I get the rules are vague, as they have to be. I was implying it should become clearer how they are applied, the more time you spend here, as you will likely witness more violations.