Jeff and Dragon

[Douglas Robinson]

Jeff and Dragon have had to be moderated again. If you are not aware, it is in the Amazon Tax thread and the volcanic ash thread.

What is everyone's thoughts on this? Both have been suspend recently for repeated violations of our posting policies. Do we need to take further action, do we need to spell out wha the next steps should be and what activities merit those steps? I think we need ot discuss this at the very least.

Doug

 

[Travis Porter]

For Jeff, how is his post inappropriate?
Jeff's post on the volcano:
Truly awesome pics Thanks David Only one thing that concerns me.. that volcano is spewing out green house gasses and messing with the economy, it needs to be "capped and taxed"

Seems like a smart alec/trying to be cute response more than anything. Do we automatically make the use of the words tax and/or economy political and ban any post using it?

In the Amazon thread, I think Jeff wrote when is enough enough. Is that inappropriate?

Maybe Jeff is on the edge, but I am not sure I believe he is on the line.

As for the Amazon thread, I think the thread IS appropriate as many of us have bought a great deal of stuff through Amazon. I knew the mess was going on, but I did not know state of NC had requested details back to 2003.

Dragon's comments did seem over the edge, and I would agree Bas' editing of it was appropriate.

 

[ScottM]

We all have been moderated for minor refractions. I do not see either violation as major refractions. I also doubt if the comments were made by others we would not be having this discussion. I would let these incidences slide.

 

[Douglas Robinson]

Having read Travis and Soctt's posts I am left wondering: what action(s) would a member, who had been previously suspended for vilating the posting policy, have to take to warrent a longer suspension and/or ban?

 

[TracyP]

We all have been moderated for minor refractions. I do not see either violation as major refractions. I also doubt if the comments were made by others we would not be having this discussion. I would let these incidences slide.

The "others" aren't repeat offenders so we would not be having this discussion. I have a different view on Jeff's post about greenhouse gasses etc. than Travis' view. I think it was intentional but that is just my view. Is it enough to warrant banning:dontknow:. Probably not, but the fact that it was moderated should send a message to Jeff that we are serious about repeated infractions.

 

[Tar Heel]

I have to agree with Scott and Travis. The infractions are not major. I agree that both Jeff and Dragon have crossed the line on more than one occasion, however, this is not one of those occasions.They paid the price (2 week suspension) and should start with a clean slate. A keen eye should be on the two of them at all times until they prove they have seen the error of their ways. They should not receive major punishment for doing something minor, that if done by someone else, would merit a delete or edit and nothing else.

To answer Doug's question, the offense should be flagrant, intentional, major, and be easily recognizable as trying to stir stink.

 

[Travis Porter]

I have a different view on Jeff's post about greenhouse gasses etc. than Travis' view. I think it was intentional but that is just my view.

Jeff very well may have been intentional, but, and I do mean this sincerely, do you really think he is that smart? Maybe he is that twisted, and maybe he is that smart, but some of the weird/stupid stuff he has done makes me think he isn't that smart, but then, maybe he is that twisted.:eusa_thin
All that weird/stupid Dorie the fish crap made no sense to me. I don't know Jeff, but.... Just hard to believe.

Dragon didn't have any need harking on the taxes and NC thing. Does it merit "banning"? Nah, probably not, but to Doug's question, what constitutes it? So many moderations in X days? Something blatant/extreme?

 

[Douglas Robinson]

Something extreme like a personal attack on someone would be a no-brainer for us to make a decision. I do not beleive that either Dragon or Jeff should have a "clean slate." They have suffered a 2 week suspension as repeat offenders. Therefore, as Stuart said they should receive greater scrutiny. This then leads to Travis's latest post X# of moderation/ y number of days. What I am getting at is that they have shown blatant disregard for the policies in the past. Continued repeat violations should merit action of some sort by us. If they are not learning from their past mistakes, we should not let them abuse the system and make life harder for the staff and the membership.
JMTCW.

 

[Tar Heel]

Extreme personal attacks sometimes leads to just a slap on the wrist. An example of which is Glenn's attack on Alan a few months ago. Had it been anyone else, the action taken would have been much different.

 

[Douglas Robinson]

I can't disagree with you on that Stuart.:dontknow:

 

[scsmith42]

I have to agree with Scott and Travis. The infractions are not major. I agree that both Jeff and Dragon have crossed the line on more than one occasion, however, this is not one of those occasions.They paid the price (2 week suspension) and should start with a clean slate. A keen eye should be on the two of them at all times until they prove they have seen the error of their ways. They should not receive major punishment for doing something minor, that if done by someone else, would merit a delete or edit and nothing else.

To answer Doug's question, the offense should be flagrant, intentional, major, and be easily recognizable as trying to stir stink.

+1. It is a shame that we have to spend so much time on two troublemakers...

As to an offender escalation and management method, I think that all posts should be judged by their content - irrespective of who the author is. We should treat everybody the same.

I fully concur with suspending members who step outside the lines, and supported both Dragon's and Jeff's suspensions.

If we have clear rules regarding when to suspend a member, and treat the evaluations for moderations/ suspension the same regardless of member, then I think that we should establish a "three strikes and you're out" rule. ie - a third suspension of the same member will result in their banishment from the site.

Perhaps one of the rules leading to a suspension could be X number of posts moderated within a specified timeframe.

Personal attacks, rascist or gender related hate remarks should be treated more aggressively.

When Steve ran things, since he owned the site he could operate it as a dictatorship. Now however, we have responsibilities to all members since we are a corporation. Hard as it may be at times, I believe that it is best if we remain fair and unbiased.

SS

 

[Tar Heel]

Scott Smith, you have done it again. You can always be counted own to approach these type things in a calm, unbiased, and reasonable manner. Your suggestions have a lot of merit. I like the "three strikes and you're out" approach and also agree that a fair policy needs to be developed concerning the number of moderations in a specific period.

No matter who serves on the board next year, I can assure you Scott that your wisdom will be missed. Hey, there's still two days to reconsider. :wwink: