Restricted Access

[pentaxuser]

Not sure if this belongs here but couldn't find any forum which catered for it any better. It's just a simple question which I would imagine is for the moderators and which will presumably have a simple answer.

I have noticed some members/ subscribers but only a very few, have a "restricted access" label under their name.

What does this signify?

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[Ole]

It basically means that we won't let them out on their own...

Sometimes it's because of a history of irrelevent and/or innflammatory posts, sometimes it's a strong tendency to blatant self promotion.

It's an alternative to banning, which we use for people that we really would like to keep here. It gives us the chance to read their posts before anyone else, and try to guess whether the rest of the members would get more upset by letting the post through than the poster would be if we didn't.

We're getting really good at guessing!

 

[Ray Heath]

so Ole, just how much censorship goes on here and who does it and why?

 

[Dave Parker]

so Ole, just how much censorship goes on here and who does it and why?

Because a chat system is not a democratic society, the owner and those he chooses to moderate his system, pretty much writes the rules, I know with my couple of chats systems I currently run, I ultimately determine what and who gets to post...that said, the majority of us that own chat systems, are really pretty flexible and make choices and such based on the good of the community..

Dave

 

[Sean]

We (myself and the mods) decide who goes on restricted access. Currently there are 3 out of the 16,525 members in this group. It's a rare thing and only done when we have no choice..

 

[Terence]

We (myself and the mods) decide who goes on restricted access. Currently there are 3 out of the 16,525 members in this group. It's a rare thing and only done when we have no choice..

The Mod Squad?

Hopefully this doesn't make me No. 4.

 

[BrianShaw]

Hopefully this doesn't make me No. 4.

I wouldn't worry about that if I were you. There are people who are far more naughty than you and don't get restricted.

 

[jstraw]

The Mod Squad?

That was actually the label that moderators wore for a while on a system I administer.

 

[Ole]

so Ole, just how much censorship goes on here and who does it and why?

I'm awake again...

There's very little actual "censorship". We (Sean and the Moderators) do it only when there's no other way, which is very, very rarely.

I'll expand Sean's comment here: Restricted access is the second to last resort. The alternative is an outright banning...

 

[FrankB]

Because a chat system is not a democratic society, the owner and those he chooses to moderate his system, pretty much writes the rules,

An excellent summary of the facts of the matter. The alternative is still not democracy, just chaos!

More power to your elbow Sean (and mods)! You've got APUG this far, keep on keepin' on!

 

[noseoil]

I've found the moderators here to be extremely courteous and willing to do a difficult job well. There is surprisingly little need for moderation on apug, but it is there to protect the community from blatant abuse. The forums are structured in such a way as to allow for a debate unrelated to photography (in the soapbox and lounge), which seems to help provide a safety valve. Banishment is normally not used and if so, there has usually been a long period leading up to the decision, which is never made lightly. It is a very decent system which has worked well. tim

 

[Bromo33333]

We (myself and the mods) decide who goes on restricted access. Currently there are 3 out of the 16,525 members in this group. It's a rare thing and only done when we have no choice..

Just out of curiosity - is there any way for one of those 3 folks to go back to regular access? Like a "time out" or something?

I remember that about 20 years ago (gawd - getting old) at University on ARPANET the sysop/sysadmin put me on restricted access after a practical joke I played on a roomie that went awry on the the computer - after petitioning, he let me back on full access though I am sure I was carefull watched...

 

[noseoil]

"Just out of curiosity - is there any way for one of those 3 folks to go back to regular access? Like a "time out" or something?"

My understanding is that a fine paid to apug, as well as all members who took offense at the posts, is sufficent to bring one back into good graces. Last I heard, it was about $1,000 (US) per violation, but only if followed by a protracted period of self-flagelation. This can remove one from a virtual purgatory imposed by the sinister moderators. tim

 

[kb244]

Keep in mind, message boards are much like a place of business, and private property. People get riled up about 'freedom of speech' when it does not nessarily apply. It would be like yelling offensive statements in the middle of a Denny's restaurant, and if they try to get the cops to haul you outside, your cry for 'freedom of speech' would fall on deaf ears.... now if you stood outside where the property becomes public... thats another thing. I guess the restricted access can be seen as a "No Shoes, No Shirts, No Service" type of sign, you can come in, but follow the rules, as opposed to "thats it, yer outa here"

Just thought I'd say the above, because I have run into people trying to use that same excuse when I had to ban them from my own forums.

 

[kb244]

...
My understanding is that a fine paid to apug, as well as all members who took offense at the posts, is sufficent to bring one back into good graces. Last I heard, it was about $1,000 (US) per violation, but only if followed by a protracted period of self-flagelation. This can remove one from a virtual purgatory imposed by the sinister moderators. tim

Makes me wonder how much investigation goes into the dispute before restriction, I mean I would hate to have to pay a grand because someone claims I was being biggoted or something.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Yes, people who are on restricted access or even who have been banned might have those restrictions lifted at some point in the future. We consider most such things on a case-by-case basis, since there are relatively few people who have been banned or put on restricted access, so there isn't a wide enough sample of all the things that can go wrong with one member or another to form a rigid set of policies.

Sean has been adding different upgrades that will offer new moderation options short of banning, like the new option to ban participants from a particular thread.

(Tim's just joking about fines, and purgatory and such, but not flagellation).

 

[kb244]

(Tim's just joking about fines, and purgatory and such, but not flagellation).

Aww... you mean no Tar and Feathers?

 

[BrianShaw]

This can remove one from a virtual purgatory imposed by the sinister moderators.

FREE MARKO!

 

[Photo Engineer]

Aww... you mean no Tar and Feathers?

They pour hot tar in the wounds created by the whips you create on your back. The whips are made from razor wire of course.

Of course, the whole thing is liberally salted as well.

PE

 

[Dave Parker]

They pour hot tar in the wounds created by the whips you create on your back. The whips are made from razor wire of course.

Of course, the whole thing is liberally salted as well.

PE

Although I have never been banned or restricted, I can tell you, the salt, hot tar and razor wire is quite painful!!!!!!



Dave

 

[Andy K]

FREE MARKO!

... with every pack of Cheerios...

 

[Black Dog]

What about Pringles-once you pop you can't stop?

 

[Photo Engineer]

Although I have never been banned or restricted, I can tell you, the salt, hot tar and razor wire is quite painful!!!!!!



Dave

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

 

[pentaxuser]

I put this on last night then logged off, expecting may be one answer from a moderator and was amazed at the interest. 3 pages no less.

Thanks for the answers especially from the mods which were comprehensive.

Not wishing to prolong the thread but, if I may have a presumption on my part covered. I am presumimg that a contributor who has exhibited some wayward tendencies is privately notified, told why the behaviour needs modifying and is then given the chance to modify behaviour before restricted access is applied.

If the visible label is needed as a trigger to ensure the mods automatically see the post before it is released then the suggestion that follows is of course "not do-able". However here goes:

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.

It won't help alter the behaviour or the rehabilitation of the genuine 24 carat hellbent on trouble cases. They can't be helped but we'd want them gone asap anyway.

Just some thoughts

pentaxuser

 

[JBrunner]

so Ole, just how much censorship goes on here and who does it and why?

I'm really not sure how site owners and their chosen moderators who moderate privately owned sites are considered to be "censors" engaging in "censorship"

You are quite free to post anything you want on internet space you control.
It is pretty clear that those who have restricted access or have been banned have more earned the result. Having simple rules and enforcing them does not amount to censorship, anymore than enforcing auto speed limits amounts to tyranny. I get tired of blatantly obnoxious people crying "Censorship!!" when in reality they need to look at the root cause, which is invariably on this forum, themselves.