Care2 suspension

Feel free to copy and paste the contents of this page.

Change of membership status
Email sent to Care2
Putting out the flame
Offer to reinstate membership
My first response
Original email
Petition idea
Avatars and Gifs
Hero of the Day

Change of membership status
top

Update 20/4/08

My suspension has been partially lifted, however my access to Care2 is still restricted. Before I go into details, Care2 did respond to my last email. However, their response was merely a repetition of their previous offer and did not answer any of my questions. I did have a more detailed response written, including responses to personal criticisms made against me by one of the admin, but I will be able to respond directly to them now so I won’t post them here.

During my suspension, I could browse posts via my groups page, but not respond. Now this has been reversed and I can respond to posts, but not browse my groups page. This makes is almost impossible to see what’s going on in the groups I do not host or co-host, let alone respond to them. I can now respond to PM’s, however I cannot start new ones as my friends list and my friends of friends list for composing posts is empty. Friends of friends appear on my home page, but no friends.

Care2 did not inform me of my change of membership status so I can not be sure when it happened. No explanation has been offered. They still have not given me a reason for the original suspension, except for when one of the admin suggested my post may not be considered a flame after all. I still do not know whether this counts as an ‘official’ warning as per the rules they sent and whether I will be permanently banned if I do not apologise and change my ways. The latest change to my membership status may have been a mistake, or it could be a new ‘feature’ they have recently installed. Perhaps the engineers ran out of bugs to fix. I get a message asking me to agree to the COC, but no explanation as to why I am being asked to do this again. As far as I can tell I am the only one being singled out for this ‘special treatment’.

Email sent to Care2
top

Even though Care2 has still not offered me any kind of explanation for the ban, they seem to think that ‘the ball is in my court’ and it is up to me to suck up to them to get reinstated. It is starting to look doubtful that we will ever find out what really happened. The closest we have come was when one of the admin said that ‘some’ of my posts were deemed not to be abusive after all. Unfortunately it was rather vague about the issue and did not say whether there were any ‘other’ posts that were considered abusive. So I sent an email in yesterday (17/3/08 AEST) which included links to the two sections below (Offer to reinstate membership, Putting out the flame). I have not received a response yet, but I will post updates if anything new happens.

Please keep up with good work with the petition. The more people that know about this, the harder will be for Care2 to 'sweep me under the carpet'.

Putting Out the Flame
top

I have since re-read the original email in detail and became rather concerned about the 'Putting Out the Flame' section, which I put in bold below. Here it is again:

Putting out the flame

Once a user has been pinpointed as a flamer by our staff (one or more instances of obvious flaming, and/or reported flaming from other site users), here's what we will do, in order:
1. Send the user a warning indicating that they're at risk of losing their account. Sometimes we may post a comment in the thread so that users will know we are dealing with the situation, but may sometimes choose not to if we don't want to call attention to it.
2. Observe the user for reform or response. If the user reforms or responds and apologizes, they will be given another chance.
3. If they refuse to do so, we will revoke their status or block their account, whichever we deem more appropriate for the situation. The blocked user is not invited back to Care2.

From what I can tell, the original suspension must be my 'official' warning. If they don't think I have reformed and apologised sufficiently I will be banned for good. However, there is no explanation attached to the warning to indicate that it is an 'official' warning as described in the 'Putting Out the Flame' section or that I am about to be banned. The request to agree to the rules seems fairly innocuous, so I would like to find out from the admin whether this does constitute a 'final warning' prior to being banned for good and whether an 'agreement' is supposed to be an acknowledgement on my part of this and an indication that I somehow understand them.

Please let everyone else who got suspended know about this clause in case they don't realise they are in this situation.

Also, why is the action taken by Care2 staff so different from the 'Putting Out the Flame' section. A suspension and a warning are not the same thing. The 'Putting Out the Flame' section also indicates that merely refusing to apologise will result in further action. How are we supposed to apologise if we don't know what we did wrong? Alternatively, maybe my suspension represents step 3 and Care2 skipped step 1 and 2.

Offer to reinstate membership
top

I received a brief response on March 4 2008 (AEST), offering to reinstate my membership if I agree to the TOS/COC. My response:

Dear Kristen,

Thanks for the concise email. I like a woman who can get to the point. Unfortunately it did not achieve its stated aim. Rather than resolving my confusion, it has only added to it. What has me most confused is Care2’s accusation that I was flaming people. Your email did not touch on this. I still do not know which post(s) of mine Care2 considers to be flaming.

As you are no doubt aware, I frequently use Care2 to discuss controversial issues such as killing cats, killing whales, why evolution is not a scientific theory, the use of taxes as an instrument of social change, the flaws in America’s democracy (not the electoral council) and how easy they would be to fix if only Americans could understand the issue, nuclear power, the use of marine parks as a fisheries management tool, global governance, ethics in progressive movements and the rights of visually impaired persons. While acknowledging irreconcilable differences of opinion and even of style, many cat lovers, whale lovers, evolutionists, economic conservatives, communists, blind nationalists, hippies, fishermen, anarchists and blind people etc have spoken out in defense of my actions on Care2. As you can hopefully appreciate, many members are not as retrained in voicing their opinions on Care2 and resolving their differences with other members. If I can get suspended for my behaviour, where does that leave them?

I am not a fool and I have had to come up with a set of rules for my forum. Out of necessity these documents are broad, vague and open to interpretation. Where conventional legal systems publish examples as a guide, to the extent that case law can replace statute, Care2 actively tries to prevent members from understanding what constitutes a violation of their rules. Obviously such a system of justice is too expensive for a site like Care2. However, judicious use of examples to clarify ambiguity would save Care2 both time and money and do a great deal to resolve the genuine confusion that reigns.

Unfortunately in life nothing is ever quite as simple as it first appears. Let’s take for example your offer to reinstate my account if I agree to the COC and TOS. I have no problem with the ambiguity in these documents, but I do have a problem agreeing to a document when I do not understand how it is employed in practice. Demanding that people agree to a set of rules while those rules are being enforced in an arbitrary and confusing manner is a classic tool of oppression. It is used to create a facade of justice around a planned and systematic injustice. I cannot help but be suspicious of your motives in making this offer. Such suspicion is inevitable in the confusion you are creating.

It has occurred to me that my suspension may have been a genuine mistake and that your offer to reinstate my account upon agreeing to the rules may be an attempt to resolve the issue while saving face. Maybe one of your ‘engineers’ lowered a flagging threshold too far. Maybe a bunch of hippies tasted success in flagging a genuine flamer off the site, became drunk on their newly discovered power, then woke up with a hangover that would make Sublime proud and leaving everyone else wondering ‘what happened’. If so, your response does far more to protect your ego than that of the unfortunate victims. Again, nothing is ever quite as simple as it first appears. Even if this idea resolved the short term problem, it has created a far worse long term problem by generating fear and uncertainty surrounding the enforcement of Care2’s rules. Not only are they vague, but they are applied in a clearly inconsistent manner. What is it that gets a member banned? Is it upsetting the wrong flag happy group of people? Is it expressing a view that the admin does not share? Is it speaking out of place on behalf of the admin, as I did immediately prior to the ban in defense of your right to ban people without explanation?

I acknowledge your request to resolve this privately, however for the reasons outlined in this and my previous letter I must insist that the process be made public. Please let me know which post(s) you consider to be flaming. The original email I received made it clear that the suspension arose from a specific thread. Why can you not even inform me what it was that I did wrong? What is the point of suspending members if it doesn’t help them to understand the rules? Why can’t you discuss this publicly even though I have given you permission to do so and asked you to? If you don’t want to discuss it on feedbag then discuss it on DMA or some other forum. You can’t blame people for bringing it to F&S if there is no other public forum to discuss it on.

I notice that in your public response to my letter you indicated that Care2 does not have the time to respond to this issue adequately. Why create a problem that you do not have the resources to resolve? Why blame members for hassling you about this when the problem is entirely of your creation? Why not just fix the bug and reinstate members who were banned for no reason, rather than playing silly games and creating additional barriers to moving forward?

Why was I suspended?

Butterflies and puppy dogs,

Freediver

PS. as always, I can be contacted via PM at OzPolitic

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl

Taking one for the team
top

I let a few other members know and sent them my response, which was posted on March 1 2008 (Care2 time) and again a few days later. A copy of this response:

Dear Care2 cyberbots,

It appears I have been accidentally blocked from your website. I received a long winded 'auto-generated' spam email accusing me of flaming, which I do not do. It went into lengthy detail about what flaming is and how to deal with it. Please fix the bug that caused this and reinstate my account. On the off-chance that the ban was intentional and initiated by a real person, please let me know which post(s) you consider to be flaming and when the suspension will be lifted, if it will be lifted at all. None of this information was contained in the spam email generated by your site.

It is my sincerest wish that no other Care2 members be forced to experience the same painful and humiliating 'cuberbuggery' that I was so arbitrarily subjected to. However given the understandable confusion that currently reigns this appears to be inevitable. As such, I must request that you respond to this message and discuss my case publicly with Care2 members on feedbag and other forums of your mutual choosing. I have nothing to hide and I know that you don't either, so I trust this will not be a problem. While reliving the experience in front of everyone may be worse than the original cyberbuggering, the interests of justice and accountability demand it. By caring and sharing, the Care2 community will grow into a more mature and functional place. Plus, I think we all deserve to know what the fcuk is going on.

I can be contacted via PM at the OzPolitic forum:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl

If any of the members who are good with graphics could do me up a picture with the Care2 frog on my back, whispering in my ear 'I am doing this to you because I love you', that would be really cool.

Hugs and sloppy kisses,

Freediver

Original email
top

On February 27 2008 (AEST) I received the following email from Care2. Note that the subject says 'autoreply' - I have no idea what it is a response to. I did not, as the email claims, contact Care2 customer support about anything.

subject: [care2.com #197458] AutoReply: Warning: TOS/COC Violation

Hello,

Thank you for contacting Care2 Customer Support. This message has been automatically generated in response to the creation of a help request regarding:

"Warning: TOS/COC Violation",

a summary of which appears below.

There is no need to reply to this message right now. Your ticket has been assigned an ID of [care2.com #197458]. We hope to get to your request shortly.

Remember, please include the string:

[care2.com #197458]

in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue, and your original request will be updated.

Thank you, Care2 Customer Support

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hello Freediver,

A thread which you've participated in, has been reported to our support team for investigation. In the thread you are flaming other users. We have placed your account on suspension. Please review the following:

Flaming Policy

What is a Flamer?

"Flaming is the hostile and insulting interaction between Internet users. Flaming usually occurs in the social context of a discussion board, Internet Relay Chat (IRC) or even through e-mail. An Internet user typically generates a flame response to other posts or users posting on a site, and is usually not constructive, does not clarify a discussion, and does not persuade others. Sometimes, flamers attempt to assert their authority, or establish a position of superiority over other users. Other times, a flamer is simply an individual who believes he or she carries the only valid opinion. This leads him or her to personally attack those who disagree. Occasionally, flamers wish to upset and offend other members of the forum, in which case they are trolls. Most often however, flames are angry or insulting messages transmitted by people who have strong feelings about a subject." --Wikipedia

Even having defined a flamer, it is important to remember that every case is different. Therefore, deciding who is or isn't a flamer, and how that contributor will be dealt with, is at the final and sole discretion of the Care2 staff.

This is also made clear in our Terms of Service. By creating an account, you are agreeing to abide by our Terms of Service. This means, of course, that you have chosen to abide by this policy.

Types of Flamers

Humans have always loved insulting one another, and on the Web this seems to be especially true. Here are three kinds of Flamers:

Garden Variety Flamers - Your average flamer is often very good at reading and attacking other users where it hits hardest (values, family, background). Flamers do not necessarily subscribe to the point of view they are touting, but they will defend it whole-heartedly. They lead with their passions first and their reason later (if at all).

Baiters - Most baiters tend to seek out other flamers with the intent of exploiting an already volatile personality and/or situation. However, a baiter may also be accidental, unconsciously starting a flame war simply by engaging a flamer (flames are easy to stoke).

Trolls - As mentioned earlier, trolls are users whose sole purpose in joining a discussion is to anger or incite the parties involved. They don't invest in the conversation or care about discourse; they come in to take the place down. They target and pick off people at will.

Etiquette

Use the Golden Rule: Treat others as you would like to be treated. Use common sense at all times, and if you don't have any then here are a few helpful hints:

- Be polite, civil and respectful.
- Appreciate that text comes without tone, subtlety, facial cues or body language.
- If you must argue, make it about facts and figures, not people and personalities (itÕs the post, not the poster).
- Avoid sweeping statements (ie: 'All Americans are ignorant;' 'Women are not as strong as men,' etc.).
- Take the high road; if you're being flamed, don't be a baiter.
- Recognize that you, too, have biases and bring them to light.
- Be realistic; your opinion is not likely to change because of a
comment, so why would you fight to change someone else's?

Spotting Flamers

First, determine whether you are really being flamed:
- The flamer attacks you personally (calling you names, being aggressive or threatening to you, making sweeping statements about you and/or your beliefs).
- The flamer ignores your attempts to respond to their accusations.
- The flamer presents his/her opinion as the only correct one.
- The flamer makes a statement or poses a question that seems hateful, abusive, inflammatory or racist or otherwise serves to marginalize a person or persons, or generalizes about a person or persons.
- The flamer makes a personal statement or poses a personal question that makes you uncomfortable or angry.

If you're unsure whether you're being flamed or not, contact our support team. Include a link and we'll determine whether action is warranted.

Diffusing the Situation

There are some steps you can take to diffuse the situation.
1. Ignore them - This is the most effective way to discourage a flamer; flamers crave baiters. Ignoring them will likely cause them to go away, and will allow us to see if they're habitual flamers or just responding to a subject they feel passionate about.
2. Respond reasonably - Sometimes, if you present a rational, reasoned, respectful retort to their flame, they will sidelined by it. More often than not, however, they will see it as bait and choose to continue the war.
3. Disengage - Step back and let the issue sit. Many times this will cause the flame to die out. If you get angry, you risk becoming a baiter.

Putting Out the Flame

In Closing

This bears repeating: Determining whether someone is a Flamer is at the sole discretion of Care2 staff. Problematic behavior will be dealt with if and when we deem it necessary.

Care2 is a community that values openness and intelligent discourse. Hate speech and abusive or inflammatory behavior is not needed to get your point across. Act like adults and you will be treated as such. Care2's staff hopes to help you make the most and the best of this experience in a way that allows others to have a good experience too.

Thank you. Kristen

Care2 Support

At the same time, I got another email from Care2 which contained another two copies of the same flaming policy, but without the warning at the top. The second copy had ">" symbols at the start of each line, indicating that it had been emailed, copied and pasted, and emailed again.

Petition idea
top

If anyone is interested in starting a petition on this issue, here are some points/demands that I think need to be emphasised. While Care2 has offered to let me back in under certain conditions, they show no signs of being prepared to explain why I was suspended in the first place, or whether my days at Care2 are officially numbered.

The goal of this Care2 petition is to demonstrate that Care2 online petitions really do work and that the Care2 admin really do Care2 listen to the Care2 members Care2. We the undersigned want the Care2 admin to provide satisfactory answers to the following questions and to be more open about suspension policies.

Which thread does the following accusation, sent to freediver, refer to?

"A thread which you've participated in, has been reported to our support team for investigation. In the thread you are flaming other users. We have placed your account on suspension."

Does freediver’s suspension and the associated communications constitute an official warning under clause 1 of ‘Putting Out the Flame’ in Care2’s flaming policy?

Will freediver be banned forever from Care2 under clauses 2 and 3 of ‘Putting Out the Flame’ in Care2’s flaming policy, if he does not apologise and cease whatever actions you consider to be flaming but won’t tell anyone else about?

Free Hat

More information and updates:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/articles/care2-suspension.html#petition

Avatars and Gifs
top

Thanks to everyone for standing up for me and especially for all the cool avatars.

Make sure your speakers are on first.

Hey, look! It's fish guy: The Movie Flash

Hey, look! It's fish guy: The Movie Windows Media Player

Hey, look! It's fish guy: The Movie Real Player

Hero of the Day
top

James Hetfield and Nick Cave have stepped up with musical tributes to the day Care2 tried 'putting out the flame'.

Hero of the Day (Hetfield/Ulrich/Hammett)

Mama, they try and break me.
The window burns to light the way back home
A light that warms no matter where they've gone.
They're off to find the hero of the day
But what if they should fall by someone's wicked way?
Still the window burns, time so slowly turns
Someone there is sighing
Keepers of the flames
Do you feel your names?
Do you hear your babies crying?
Mama they try and break me
Still they try and break me
'Scuse me while I tend to how I feel
These things return to me that still seem real
Now deservingly this easy chair
But the rocking stops by wheels of despair
Don't want your aid
But the fist I've made for years won't hold or feel
No I'm not all me
So please excuse me while I tend to how I fell
But now the dreams and waking screams that ever last through the night (echoed between James and Jason)

So build the wall behind it crawl and hide until it's light
Can you hear your babies crying now?
Still the window burns
Time so slowly turns
And someone there is sighing
Keepers of the flames, can't you feel your names?
Can't you hear your babies crying?
But now the dreams and waking screams that
ever last the night
So build a wall behind it crawl
And hide until it's light
So can't you hear your babies crying now?
Mama they try and break me
Mama they try and break me
Mama they try and break me
Mama they try mama they try
Mama they try and break me
Mama they try and break me
Mama they try and break me
Mama they try and break me
Mama they try and break me
Mama they try and break me
Mama they try Mama they try

Into My Arms (Nick Cave)

I don't believe in an interventionist God
But I know, darling, that you do
But if I did I would kneel down and ask Him
Not to intervene when it came to you
Not to touch a hair on your head
To leave you as you are
And if He felt He had to direct you
Then direct you into my arms

Into my arms, O Lord
Into my arms, O Lord
Into my arms, O Lord
Into my arms

And I don't believe in the existence of angels
But looking at you I wonder if that's true
But if I did I would summon them together
And ask them to watch over you
To each burn a candle for you
To make bright and clear your path
And to walk, like Christ, in grace and love
And guide you into my arms

Into my arms, O Lord
Into my arms, O Lord
Into my arms, O Lord
Into my arms

And I believe in Love
And I know that you do too
And I believe in some kind of path
That we can walk down, me and you
So keep your candlew burning
And make her journey bright and pure
That she will keep returning
Always and evermore

Into my arms, O Lord
Into my arms, O Lord
Into my arms, O Lord
Into my arms