Nuisance BAN

Post by **TheArkive** » 12 Mar 2020, 07:01

As sorry as I am to see him be banned, I fully respect the need for a community to defend itself. The need to be aware of oneself, and how one's words and actions affect a community, is also paramount.

Given this isn't an actual workplace I can't understand why he wouldn't just walk away.

Not only do I support the mods on this one given the explanation so far, but I would hope that any mod would be immediately honest to myself and other users about our conduct on this forum, as well as the quality of user's posts. I'm not soft skinned, and I value the meaning of teamwork, leading, and following.

NOTE: I know the desire to be "professional" is important, but I think these kind of decisions shouldn't be censored too much for users who aren't intimately aware of the situation, simply for the sake of letting the community know what the expectations are, and where the line actually is. I'm glad for all the additional posts that gave additional context, which also summarized what could have been hours upon hours of searching and reading. I would not have known the reasoning behind the ban otherwise.

Post by **tank** » 07 Dec 2019, 12:15

no i learned of the threat this morning the actual threat took place recently tho

Post by **guest3456** » 07 Dec 2019, 10:35

tank wrote: ↑
07 Dec 2019, 08:20
Ok this conversation is kind of over. I have just been made aware of a direct threat jeeswg made. I now plan to enforce a permaban. The accuser does not wish to be mentioned but i will say that tge statement has been verified

lol wow. as i said, you'd think after being banned, that might cause someone to chill out and think to themselves, "damn i need to tone it down". not this joker. i knew he wouldn't change

Post by **tank** » 07 Dec 2019, 08:22

@SOTE i really like your idea let me think about how to best implement it

Post by **tank** » 07 Dec 2019, 08:20

Ok this conversation is kind of over. I have just been made aware of a direct threat jeeswg made. I now plan to enforce a permaban. The accuser does not wish to be mentioned but i will say that tge statement has been verified

Post by **SOTE** » 07 Dec 2019, 03:32

lmstearn wrote: ↑
06 Dec 2019, 21:54
It's just an opinion on what was initially perceived as a permanent ban out of the blue. Folks all round the world make decisions as a collective, and other folks and collectives have the freedom to share an opinion of them. Even the benefit of knowledge of whatever occurs behind closed doors may or may not change one's opinion, if that opinion is based on a first impression.
IMOP, there is no right or wrong, it's just best practice. Perhaps it might have been suggested somewhere else AHK consider the adoption a tiered banning system like SO. Or three strikes and you're out etc. We would all get the picture then.
If we had the knowledge Jeeswg was officially warned by the mods several times during the lead up to the ban, that would get a better reception as well. For example, does the moderation team have a pro-forma or prepared letter drawn up to address forum violations by users, and was this sent to Jeeswg?

I do think there might be some merit to the suggestion of allowing a public warning or public temp ban, for established members (color blue and not color orange) over questionable behavior. Arguing, swear words, trolling, etc... I'm not suggesting this for any type of hacking or spamming (or anything putting the website and user accounts in danger), as can see administrating an immediate permanent ban as necessary.

Posting that, say user ABC, violated forum policies and was banned for 2 week, seems like a possibly good idea. Letting them, and everyone, know that failure to comply with forum policies in the future can lead to a permanent ban. This can be reserved for questionable or borderline cases, where a user was given a warning/warnings, but appears not to heed them. This will at least make it publicly clear to everyone what's going on with a member, what specific behavior they need to correct, or what specific policy they violated versus it being a kind of backdoor affair and brawl that nobody is sure what's going on or who is doing what. Sometimes there is another side of the story or other factors at play, which are not clear. This then helps with the appearance of fairness to all sides.

Post by **tank** » 06 Dec 2019, 23:37

i appreciate and read every comment carefully in this thread

lmstearn wrote: ↑
06 Dec 2019, 21:54
perceived as a permanent ban out of the blue

I guess i can see room for improvement in my communication skills. This has been building almost since his joining the community.

lmstearn wrote: ↑
06 Dec 2019, 21:54
IMOP, there is no right or wrong

I never took you to be stating another meaning

I posted publicly about this event just to accomplish 2 things. Clearly communicate an executive decision for an entirely unprecedented situation. and to elicit feedback. It goes without being discussed but i often make decisions for the entire community. but these are usually limited to bot countermeasures and firewall rules. I dont ask permission but rather i often do them for the community good and behind the scenes.

This event stood out

It sounds like i am hearing the following message from the community.

We understand and dont after learning more about the problem oppose some kind of administrative action. But a permanent action is extreme and we want him to get one more chance

jeeswg I know for certain your following this thread. I will think on the words of this community on your behalf. I will email you in the next couple days to discuss a path to return if you are interested. I encourage to notice the valuable feedback you have received in this thread as well.

Post by **guest3456** » 06 Dec 2019, 22:49

lmstearn wrote: ↑
06 Dec 2019, 21:54
It's just an opinion on what was initially perceived as a permanent ban out of the blue. Folks all round the world make decisions as a collective, and other folks and collectives have the freedom to share an opinion of them. Even the benefit of knowledge of whatever occurs behind closed doors may or may not change one's opinion, if that opinion is based on a first impression.

fair. its ok to have an initial reaction and opinion. but if you think it happened "out of the blue" then you didn't read carefully enough...

lmstearn wrote: ↑
06 Dec 2019, 21:54
If we had the knowledge Jeeswg was officially warned by the mods several times during the lead up to the ban, that would get a better reception as well.

that knowledge of several warnings was given in the very first post:

tank wrote: Let it be known that I tried for almost a year to stay out of it. I tried politely advising him. I tried a firm tone.
...
Several months ago I now i told Jeeswg Not to make choose. I told him i believed it was possible to be a constructive member of this community.

and more knowledge of repeated warnings were given by other green and red users in this thread

and so, its also fair for me to hypothetically question whether or not you also have such a low opinion of the mods and admins that you think that they would recklessly ban someone, without just cause.

now, no, i don't honestly believe you do have that opinion of those mods. i know that in your very first reply, you even wrote: "we trust you to make the right decisions for all here". so my post was more directed towards the others who are critical, not really you Imstearn.

do the admins not deserve the benefit of the doubt? haven't the staff proven to be fair over the entire existence of the forum? i believe they have. and so i would think that deferring to their judgement isn't so bad after all, especially after the first post outlines what an extreme case this was for them.

Post by **boiler** » 06 Dec 2019, 22:44

lmstearn wrote: ↑
06 Dec 2019, 21:54
If we had the knowledge Jeeswg was officially warned by the mods several times during the lead up to the ban, that would get a better reception as well. For example, does the moderation team have a pro-forma or prepared letter drawn up to address forum violations by users, and was this sent to Jeeswg?

Being a member of an online forum is a privilege, not a right. Dismissal from much more important privileges, like a job, is often subject to much less formal of a process than what you outlined. He was made aware over a long period of time that his behavior was outside of what was expected and could be tolerated from forum members and was given many opportunities to modify his approach. For a team of volunteers to have worked for years to try to change his behavior, they should not be expected to have drawn up formal documents and have a process in place for a situation that has not even arisen before now.

Let's remember what his dismissal means to him. He has no less access to the information contained on the forum than he did before, and he is still able to ask questions as a guest. Not being a member doesn't inhibit his ability to use AHK or profit from it should his work involve its use. On other forums, members get banned daily. It is not a catastrophic event, and it's something that could easily have been avoided if he had listened to the staff on any of a number of opportunities to do so.

Post by **lmstearn** » 06 Dec 2019, 21:54

guest3456 wrote: ↑
06 Dec 2019, 10:55
regardless, my question is: do you think the current mods and admins are like dragons and bears, who are making decisions off the cuff? decisions, mind you, that are the strongest that one could take? do you think the mods and admins aren't "fair" enough, or maybe aren't as civilized as you, you posters who are criticizing the choice? did you read the first post in this thread, where all admins refused to act for years, for the very reasons all of you are citing (censorship, civility, etc)?

No.

guest3456 wrote: ↑
06 Dec 2019, 10:55
its somewhat of an arrogant assumption to think that you are more righteous than the current collective group of staff.

It's just an opinion on what was initially perceived as a permanent ban out of the blue. Folks all round the world make decisions as a collective, and other folks and collectives have the freedom to share an opinion of them. Even the benefit of knowledge of whatever occurs behind closed doors may or may not change one's opinion, if that opinion is based on a first impression.
IMOP, there is no right or wrong, it's just best practice. Perhaps it might have been suggested somewhere else AHK consider the adoption a tiered banning system like SO. Or three strikes and you're out etc. We would all get the picture then.
If we had the knowledge Jeeswg was officially warned by the mods several times during the lead up to the ban, that would get a better reception as well. For example, does the moderation team have a pro-forma or prepared letter drawn up to address forum violations by users, and was this sent to Jeeswg?

Post by **guest3456** » 06 Dec 2019, 15:11

tank wrote: ↑
06 Dec 2019, 13:33
Any one of the admins(not me) is free to work with him and get him to understand that he cannot continue t instigate and provoke

good luck getting him to understand anything. this is a person with no self-awareness at all. i've engaged with him in many PMs, as me and him have tried to bury our hatchet and make peace. its like talking to a brick wall. i have no idea what other admins have gone through , but i assume its similar based on some posts already written. if someone can get through to him, that would be a miracle. maybe this ban will wake him up

Post by **tank** » 06 Dec 2019, 13:33

just me wrote: ↑
06 Dec 2019, 12:05
'incomprehensible' parts of his postings.

Gio wrote: ↑
06 Dec 2019, 09:36
but very oftenly he provides some huge list of articles or some tricky code sample that are not exactly what the OP asked for.

which often demands that those of lessor knowledge are intimidated from helping and the OP will just go away

guest3456 wrote: ↑
06 Dec 2019, 10:55
he had the gall to harass joedf

This was actually my tipping poing if im honest. JoeDF will Effin bend over backwards to keep people happy.

Gio wrote: ↑
06 Dec 2019, 09:36
he often acts mildly aggressive towards said perso

i often let this go as i have my own reputation to consider

lmstearn wrote: ↑
06 Dec 2019, 08:27
TBQH he has the talen

One of the reasons i let it go as long as i did. But i am reminded that most people who follow statements like "there's gold in them thar hills" often die desolated and penniless

nnnik wrote: ↑
06 Dec 2019, 04:23
Im prety sure that he will be given a second chance

Any one of the admins(not me) is free to work with him and get him to understand that he cannot continue t instigate and provoke forum leaders. all have the power to reverse me. but Know this i have reached my tipping point. any more abuse of the staff will be a permanent choice

Post by **gregster** » 06 Dec 2019, 12:51

I would argue that especially the endless meta-disussions (for which I don't solely blame jeeswg) could have much broken up earlier and the escalation to this point today could have prevented with a more consistent approach.

Some might say, we don't have enough the people to do that - I would argue just the opposite.

You need less people, if you take care early and follow through with a number of consistent, escalating measures after a clear announcement has been made (if that gets ignored).
If our current situation could be salvaged, I don't know. ~~Someone~~ Many would need to try.

Post by **Gio** » 06 Dec 2019, 12:25

This is precisely what happened in the discussions among the staff. The mild misbehavior and the questions regarding a possible "particular mindset" did got people to consider more relenting actions as a more suitable approach. Unfortunately, these have been tried and led to no good: we were getting more and more troublesome instances over time, regardless of new attempts to de-escalate conflicts. And if this was not enougth, the more the people that tried to approach him with talk, the more the people that now had a particular reason not to act without seeking support from others. Eventually this led to frustration growing among a set of key people (very active, helpful, contributing and/or staff members).

Post by **just me** » 06 Dec 2019, 12:05

TAC109 wrote: ↑
04 Dec 2019, 21:44
I’m sad that this has happened.

While I found many of this posts incomprehensible (verbal diarrhoea?) I know that he helped lots of people in the 'ask for help' forum, and many of these have thanked him for his advice. I guess he is 'different' in a compulsive sort of way, and liked to have everything defined and nailed down, hence his 'lists'.

I haven’t seen anything malicious in his posts, but he has obviously rubbed up some administrators the wrong way.

I agree, and I add "he has obviously rubbed up some administrators and power users the wrong way."

I don't agree with jeeswg's attitude rather often. I think he's an obstinate, priggish, and vain person. But he actually helped lots of people, that's why I started to simply ignore the 'incomprehensible' parts of his postings. IMO, this ban is not justified.

Post by **guest3456** » 06 Dec 2019, 10:55

lmstearn wrote: ↑
06 Dec 2019, 08:27
We're better than dragons and bears, though

indeed we are, and so, this is for everyone criticizing the group of mods and admins here (not just you imstearn):

i think many of you have just seen this user posting abundantly, and haven't seen some of the other nonsense or dealt with harassing PMs. its funny to find out that he had the gall to harass joedf, one of the nicest admins mind you, and also start to rally support to get himself promoted to mod. funny, but yet not surprising in the least. yet you guys don't know other stuff that's happened behind the scenes. and, neither do i, which leads to my point

regardless, my question is: do you think the current mods and admins are like dragons and bears, who are making decisions off the cuff? decisions, mind you, that are the strongest that one could take? do you think the mods and admins aren't "fair" enough, or maybe aren't as civilized as you, you posters who are criticizing the choice? did you read the first post in this thread, where all admins refused to act for years, for the very reasons all of you are citing (censorship, civility, etc)?

its somewhat of an arrogant assumption to think that you are more righteous than the current collective group of staff. i haven't seen one single instance of impropriety by any mod or admin on this new forum since its inception, which seems to be approx 6 years now.

but, perhaps you think that all of the multiple independent staff members here who have all tried to reason with this person, and tried to get him to change, over the course of multiple years, all of those independent people are all like dragons and bears, and their collective decision is one made out of emotional haste rather than reasoned logic after all avenues have been exhausted. perhaps you also think a whole separate independent website (stackoverflow) also has admins who are like dragons and bears, and also implemented their banhammer too hastily on this user.

i think giving the staff the benefit of the doubt applies here. maybe they are just as civil and reasonable as all of you, and maybe the staff from a whole separate website are too. just maybe. but i admit i may be biased.

Post by **guest3456** » 06 Dec 2019, 10:46

well said Gio

Post by **nnnik** » 06 Dec 2019, 09:59

A perhaps better example of the problems he causes can be found in this topic: https://www.autohotkey.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=13&p=280213#p280213

Post by **Gio** » 06 Dec 2019, 09:36

If it's a question of content, a more convincing case for ban would involve a display of a collection of posts that do display errant tendencies in dispute

There can unfortunately be no such thing in this case. Due to the nature of human language, we need to be concise in our writings, and the case in question has been dragging for so long exactly because there is no instance of a concise and severe misbehavior. What there is, however, is a huge collection of verbose and sometimes hard to understand posts that very oftenly display mild misbehavior. The severity of the case is thus in the collective more than in any single instance.

Take a look at his answers in the ask for help section. Very rarely does he provide a definitive and concise answer, but very oftenly he provides some huge list of articles or some tricky code sample that are not exactly what the OP asked for. If the OP is a newbie in search of something simple, they can be easily misled into actually trying to read through the articles in order to find the solution (even though it's not necessary: the answer can indeed be presented in the form a few lines of code or a short explanation).

We cannot issue a rule stating that a user could be warned or banned because a certain post has been verbose, badly structured and/or inconcise, but you can clearly see that thousands of posts like this are highly damaging to the forums.

Also, when people confront him about the vaguenes of his posts, he often acts mildly aggressive towards said person, to the point where an actual feud was estabilished between him and 7 or so other active members (some of which are part of the staff). And while there are no instances in which he actually cursed anyone, you can easily see that the posts are highly prone to offend folk (example in the spoiler).

In the end i can only say this: the case has been throughly analized by the entire staff for months, and basically everyone ended up agreeing that something had to be done. Also, those that have had heated conversations with the user in the past were (honourably, i should point) not willing to act on it themselves, so Tank ended up acting in everyones stead.

Post by **boiler** » 06 Dec 2019, 09:08

lmstearn wrote: ↑
06 Dec 2019, 08:27
TBQH he has the talent and capabilities for developing code libraries that the community could use, rather than lend them to playing "politics"

Apparently, one of the primary reasons for the ban is that he directed much of his energy towards unrelenting behind-the-scenes politicking for his forum-related causes. I think guest3456 made a very important point: The forum staff are volunteers, and they don't need their time wasted by constantly dealing with the interactions of one member.

Nuisance BAN

Post a reply

Expand view Topic review: Nuisance BAN

Re: Nuisance BAN

Re: Nuisance BAN

Re: Nuisance BAN

Re: Nuisance BAN

Re: Nuisance BAN

Re: Nuisance BAN

Re: Nuisance BAN

Re: Nuisance BAN

Re: Nuisance BAN

Re: Nuisance BAN

Re: Nuisance BAN

Re: Nuisance BAN

Re: Nuisance BAN

Re: Nuisance BAN

Re: Nuisance BAN

Re: Nuisance BAN

Re: Nuisance BAN

Re: Nuisance BAN

Re: Nuisance BAN

Re: Nuisance BAN