Restricted Access

[Dave Parker]

Dave, just out of prurient curiosity, who did it and why? Or did you do this yourself? The answer to "why" will be most interesting, I'm sure.

LoL.

PE

Hi Ron,

Well the moderators who were mad at me would say I did it to myself, but there was a time, I chose to interject my own opinion about a couple of topics, and was forthwith put in my place, as I remember it was about the time you came out and visited my way, so now, I just keep my opinions to myself most of the time and toe the line.

LOL



Dave

 

[Photo Engineer]

Hi Ron,

Well the moderators who were mad at me would say I did it to myself, but there was a time, I chose to interject my own opinion about a couple of topics, and was forthwith put in my place, as I remember it was about the time you came out and visited my way, so now, I just keep my opinions to myself most of the time and toe the line.

LOL



Dave

Dave;

I'll be out your way this spring, I guess, so lets try to get together again and have lunch or dinner.

PE

 

[David Brown]

To avoid tagging anyone with a visible label is it not possible just to maintain the restricted access in such a way that knowledge of its application remains between the offender and the mods. That way afer a return to acceptable behaviour and at a time to be decided by the mods the offender returns to the fold, rehabilitated and without any "tag" remaining in other contributors memories afffecting their attitude towards that person for a time that goes way beyond the change for the better.

Some of us don't need tags to remember certain behavior. Nor will the absense of a visible sign cause us to forget.

 

[Ole]

Some of us don't need tags to remember certain behavior. Nor will the absense of a visible sign cause us to forget.

I believe that part of the reason why I'm a moderator is that I always forget. What happened yesterday in another thread has no bearing on this thread today, and people have to be very obnoxious to be remembered. a week or two of good behavior, and I've forgotten all previous transgressions.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

I think the reason there is a tag is that this is just the option the software provides for regulating access to the site. Users are placed into groups by the forum owner like "member," "subscriber," "moderator," "banned user," or "restricted access." We could just not have any tag show under the username, but I think in general it's useful to know who the moderators are, and it probably encourages subscriptions if subscription status is public, and having "restricted access" appear publically is a byproduct of that software structure.

 

[copake_ham]

Banning someone totally is such a major step - that I imagine the mods and Sean deliberate over doing so for some time.

But empowering a moderator to ban someone from a particular thread enters a new element of subjectivity depending on which moderator makes the decision.

What one mod may think is a rigorous debate another might conclude is offensive behavior.

I guess this is a useful tool for site policing - but I do hope it will be used with great restraint and devoid of any personal biases a mod may have.

 

[Dave Parker]

Some of us don't need tags to remember certain behavior. Nor will the absense of a visible sign cause us to forget.

Yep,

and those of us who have opinions don't forget those who have no tolerance for others opinions..

Dave

 

[Ray Heath]

... blatantly obnoxious people ...

excuse me

 

[jd callow]

But empowering a moderator to ban someone from a particular thread enters a new element of subjectivity depending on which moderator makes the decision.

What one mod may think is a rigorous debate another might conclude is offensive behavior.

I guess this is a useful tool for site policing - but I do hope it will be used with great restraint and devoid of any personal biases a mod may have.

The mod's do next to nothing without a vote. Which often takes a day or two.

No one has been banned without deliberation. The same will probably hold true for banning people from a thread. Although there my be temporary thread bannings -- as in a recent and uncalled for attack on my coif -- so that no further damage can be done whilst we debate the subject.

 

[MattKing]

Did the recent upgrade result in any changes in anyone's "banned" status?

I ask, because in at least one case, I note that someone who was labelled "Inactive" is not now so labelled.

Matt

 

[JBrunner]

excuse me

Apologies, I wasn't meaning you.

 

[Ray Heath]

Apologies, I wasn't meaning you.

that's ok j, i thought it a little uncharacteristically harsh

anyway, i didn't mean to infer that censorship is a bad thing

i think any intelligent, dynamic group needs controls and rules to live by

besides, if we know where the line is, we can push the envelope(?)

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Did the recent upgrade result in any changes in anyone's "banned" status?

I ask, because in at least one case, I note that someone who was labelled "Inactive" is not now so labelled.

Matt

I don't think the upgrade changed anyone's status in this regard. Bear in mind that some people might be put into the "inactive" group by their own request to have their account closed, and then they may decide to come back at some future point. I think this has happened once or twice.

 

[pentaxuser]

I think the reason there is a tag is that this is just the option the software provides for regulating access to the site. Users are placed into groups by the forum owner like "member," "subscriber," "moderator," "banned user," or "restricted access." We could just not have any tag show under the username, but I think in general it's useful to know who the moderators are, and it probably encourages subscriptions if subscription status is public, and having "restricted access" appear publically is a byproduct of that software structure.

Thanks for full answer

pentaxuser