Australian Politics Forum - Rules for banning members

Auggie

Gold Member

Offline

The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571

Rules for banning members
Sep 12^th, 2017 at 3:16pm

Given the recent spate of bannings at OzPolitic, I felt that I should come up with my own rules.

Please provide feedback, suggestions and opinions.
--------------------
Rules for OzPolitic:

Rules prescribed for the provision of debate, conversation and argumentation on OzPolitic forums. Rules for banning members on OzPolitic.
--------------------
OzPolitic values freedom of speech and provides a platform for the free expression of speech about any issue. People may, subject to the rules prescribed below, discuss or raise any issue they wish.

Any person who:

1)    blatantly vilifies, insults or profanes another forum member using expletive language, and, does not, within forty-eight hours of making said post, apologize for or retract said post, or express regret for making such post; in all which cases to be done publicly on the Forum,

shall be banned from OzPolitic for a period of seven days. This provision generally applies in cases where the vilification or insult is blatant and continual, and takes course over several posts within a forty-eight-hour period; and said comments do not relate to the topic of the thread. A simple ‘once-off’ comment does not usually warrant a ban.

Any person who:

1)    insults or vilifies personally and directly the family and/or member of said family of any forum member, notwithstanding that said forum member brings up the issue of their family,

shall be banned from OzPolitic for a period of three months. Said provision applies in cases where another forum member intentionally and blatantly insults the family or a member of the family of any forum member. This applies irrespective of whether or not a forum member has raised the issue of their family.

Any person who:

1)    posts any nude image (which reveals in nude, either one of both of a person’s ‘private parts’), whether male or female,

shall be banned for a period of seven days. This applies only to adult photos.

Any person who

1)    posts any nude or pornographic image of an under-aged person

shall be banned indefinitely.

Any person who:

1)    reveals any personal information, including addresses, phones numbers, emails, the real names etc. of another forum member without the latter’s consent,

shall be banned from OzPolitic indefinitely.

Back to top

The Progressive President

IP Logged

Aussie

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 37678
Gender: male

Re: Rules for banning members
Reply #1 - Sep 12^th, 2017 at 3:23pm

Might need some tweaking on time/ban periods...but...bloody good start.

Can you devise and write up a system of appeal or review for bans?

Perhaps a Senate or something so called?

I hope something is done. In anger, I've often thought of contacting the most prolific posters and suggesting there be a 'collective' boycott of OzPol in the case of seemingly unjust arbitrary banning. I've never done that, but it (the power imbalance) really does annoy me.

(And yes, to cut off at the pas the obvious comment....I have that power advantage as a Sub-Forum Mod but I really use it very sparingly and only in the most obvious of cases.)

Back to top

IP Logged

Secret Wars

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 3928
Gender: male

Re: Rules for banning members
Reply #2 - Sep 12^th, 2017 at 3:32pm

Aussie wrote on Sep 12^th, 2017 at 3:23pm:

I hope something is done. In anger, I've often thought of contacting the most prolific posters and suggesting there be a 'collective' boycott of OzPol in the case of seemingly unjust arbitrary banning. I've never done that, but it (the power imbalance) really does annoy me.

Power imbalance? As for most prolific posters to whom do you refer? I noted yesterday that yourself, Mothra, John and Gregg do nearly a hundred posts a day. 98 to be exact. That's an average, so every day, between you, you clowns are doing 700 posts a week.

It's rare that John, and Gregg especially are not present.

And you all act as front men, a unified tag team defending and deflecting from each other, feeding lines to each other for a straight man routine.

Back to top

IP Logged

Aussie Gold Member Offline OzPolitic Posts: 37678 Gender:	Re: Rules for banning members Reply #3 - Sep 12^th, 2017 at 3:35pm Yes, that four would be included among the term 'prolific posters.' There are very many others.
Back to top	IP Logged

mothra

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 34535
Gender: female

Re: Rules for banning members
Reply #4 - Sep 12^th, 2017 at 3:36pm

Secret Wars wrote on Sep 12^th, 2017 at 3:32pm:

Aussie wrote on Sep 12^th, 2017 at 3:23pm:

I hope something is done. In anger, I've often thought of contacting the most prolific posters and suggesting there be a 'collective' boycott of OzPol in the case of seemingly unjust arbitrary banning. I've never done that, but it (the power imbalance) really does annoy me.

Power imbalance? As for most prolific posters to whom do you refer? I noted yesterday that yourself, Mothra, John and Gregg do nearly a hundred posts a day. 98 to be exact. That's an average, so every day, between you, you clowns are doing 700 posts a week.

It's rare that John, and Gregg especially are not present.

And you all act as front men, a unified tag team defending and deflecting from each other, feeding lines to each other for a straight man routine.

What a funny thing to not only calculate, but obsess over reporting. Like, again and again and again and stuff.

Takes all sorts, i suppose.

Secret has checked out all of our profiles and actually done the maths!

Astonishing.

Back to top

If you can't be a good example, you have to be a horrible warning.

IP Logged

mothra Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 34535 Gender:	Re: Rules for banning members Reply #5 - Sep 12^th, 2017 at 3:38pm Aussie wrote on Sep 12^th, 2017 at 3:35pm: Yes, that four would be included among the term 'prolific posters.' There are very many others. You're not getting it, Aussie. Secret has a much more fulfilling life than all of us. That's the point. Can't you tell how happy he is?
Back to top	If you can't be a good example, you have to be a horrible warning. IP Logged

Aussie

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 37678
Gender: male

Re: Rules for banning members
Reply #6 - Sep 12^th, 2017 at 3:41pm

mothra wrote on Sep 12^th, 2017 at 3:38pm:

Aussie wrote on Sep 12^th, 2017 at 3:35pm:

Yes, that four would be included among the term 'prolific posters.' There are very many others.

You're not getting it, Aussie. Secret has a much more fulfilling life than all of us. That's the point.

Can't you tell how happy he is?

I know his game from more than a decade ago, Mothra.

I'm not playing it.

I'll stay on the Topic in the hope something is done so that boycotting 'collectives' of the kind I think about in anger, don't develop.

Something needs to be done.

The place is nothing without active Members.

Back to top

IP Logged

Auggie

Gold Member

Offline

The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571

Re: Rules for banning members
Reply #7 - Sep 12^th, 2017 at 3:43pm

Process for banning a member:

1) the respective GMod, upon receiving a complaint, or observing a potential breach of rules shall proceed to make a charge (perhaps there could be a separate topic for charges??) and state their intention to ban said member, providing an explanation as to reasons behind the charge. (Think of the impeachment process).

2) the perpetrator shall have seventy-two hours to state their reasons and respond to the charge. During this time, they may retract a statement, apologize or express remorse over the respective post.

3) once the period of seventy-two hours has passed, a vote shall be taken among all of the GMods collectively. At least a majority of the whole number of Gmods must vote yeah (abstentions count as being against the charge) in order for the ban to occur.

4) the GMod then posts publicly the decision of the (Council?) and explains their reasons. Dissenters post their reasoning (much like the High Court).
-------------

Back to top

The Progressive President

IP Logged

Secret Wars

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 3928
Gender: male

Re: Rules for banning members
Reply #8 - Sep 12^th, 2017 at 3:44pm

mothra wrote on Sep 12^th, 2017 at 3:36pm:

Secret Wars wrote on Sep 12^th, 2017 at 3:32pm:

Aussie wrote on Sep 12^th, 2017 at 3:23pm:

I hope something is done. In anger, I've often thought of contacting the most prolific posters and suggesting there be a 'collective' boycott of OzPol in the case of seemingly unjust arbitrary banning. I've never done that, but it (the power imbalance) really does annoy me.

Power imbalance? As for most prolific posters to whom do you refer? I noted yesterday that yourself, Mothra, John and Gregg do nearly a hundred posts a day. 98 to be exact. That's an average, so every day, between you, you clowns are doing 700 posts a week.

It's rare that John, and Gregg especially are not present.

And you all act as front men, a unified tag team defending and deflecting from each other, feeding lines to each other for a straight man routine.

What a funny thing to not only calculate, but obsess over reporting. Like, again and again and again and stuff.

Takes all sorts, i suppose.

Secret has checked out all of our profiles and actually done the maths!

Astonishing.

Work of a minute Mothra, click on your names, easily available everywhere, you clowns infest the forum, Wink

read, calculate.

If I were you I would be embarrassed about the amount of time you spend here rather than trying to deride my very easy gathering of a number.

Back to top

IP Logged

mothra

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 34535
Gender: female

Re: Rules for banning members
Reply #9 - Sep 12^th, 2017 at 3:45pm

Secret Wars wrote on Sep 12^th, 2017 at 3:44pm:

mothra wrote on Sep 12^th, 2017 at 3:36pm:

Secret Wars wrote on Sep 12^th, 2017 at 3:32pm:

Aussie wrote on Sep 12^th, 2017 at 3:23pm:

I hope something is done. In anger, I've often thought of contacting the most prolific posters and suggesting there be a 'collective' boycott of OzPol in the case of seemingly unjust arbitrary banning. I've never done that, but it (the power imbalance) really does annoy me.

Power imbalance? As for most prolific posters to whom do you refer? I noted yesterday that yourself, Mothra, John and Gregg do nearly a hundred posts a day. 98 to be exact. That's an average, so every day, between you, you clowns are doing 700 posts a week.

It's rare that John, and Gregg especially are not present.

And you all act as front men, a unified tag team defending and deflecting from each other, feeding lines to each other for a straight man routine.

What a funny thing to not only calculate, but obsess over reporting. Like, again and again and again and stuff.

Takes all sorts, i suppose.

Secret has checked out all of our profiles and actually done the maths!

Astonishing.

Work of a minute Mothra, click on your names, easily available everywhere, you clowns infest the forum, Wink

read, calculate.

If I were you I would be embarrassed about the amount of time you spend here rather than trying to deride my very easy gathering of a number.

Yet you did, Secret. You took the time to do it. You thought about it, then you did it.

Kinda pathetic, don't you think?

Back to top

If you can't be a good example, you have to be a horrible warning.

IP Logged

Secret Wars

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 3928
Gender: male

Re: Rules for banning members
Reply #10 - Sep 12^th, 2017 at 3:47pm

mothra wrote on Sep 12^th, 2017 at 3:45pm:

Secret Wars wrote on Sep 12^th, 2017 at 3:44pm:

mothra wrote on Sep 12^th, 2017 at 3:36pm:

Secret Wars wrote on Sep 12^th, 2017 at 3:32pm:

Aussie wrote on Sep 12^th, 2017 at 3:23pm:

I hope something is done. In anger, I've often thought of contacting the most prolific posters and suggesting there be a 'collective' boycott of OzPol in the case of seemingly unjust arbitrary banning. I've never done that, but it (the power imbalance) really does annoy me.

Power imbalance? As for most prolific posters to whom do you refer? I noted yesterday that yourself, Mothra, John and Gregg do nearly a hundred posts a day. 98 to be exact. That's an average, so every day, between you, you clowns are doing 700 posts a week.

It's rare that John, and Gregg especially are not present.

And you all act as front men, a unified tag team defending and deflecting from each other, feeding lines to each other for a straight man routine.

What a funny thing to not only calculate, but obsess over reporting. Like, again and again and again and stuff.

Takes all sorts, i suppose.

Secret has checked out all of our profiles and actually done the maths!

Astonishing.

Work of a minute Mothra, click on your names, easily available everywhere, you clowns infest the forum, Wink

read, calculate.

If I were you I would be embarrassed about the amount of time you spend here rather than trying to deride my very easy gathering of a number.

Yet you did, Secret. You took the time to do it. You thought about it, then you did it.

Kinda pathetic, don't you think?

Work of a minute Mothra. How many many minutes you spend here every day?

Pathetic you say? Grin

Back to top

IP Logged

mothra

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 34535
Gender: female

Re: Rules for banning members
Reply #11 - Sep 12^th, 2017 at 3:51pm

Secret Wars wrote on Sep 12^th, 2017 at 3:47pm:

mothra wrote on Sep 12^th, 2017 at 3:45pm:

Secret Wars wrote on Sep 12^th, 2017 at 3:44pm:

mothra wrote on Sep 12^th, 2017 at 3:36pm:

Secret Wars wrote on Sep 12^th, 2017 at 3:32pm:

Aussie wrote on Sep 12^th, 2017 at 3:23pm:

I hope something is done. In anger, I've often thought of contacting the most prolific posters and suggesting there be a 'collective' boycott of OzPol in the case of seemingly unjust arbitrary banning. I've never done that, but it (the power imbalance) really does annoy me.

Power imbalance? As for most prolific posters to whom do you refer? I noted yesterday that yourself, Mothra, John and Gregg do nearly a hundred posts a day. 98 to be exact. That's an average, so every day, between you, you clowns are doing 700 posts a week.

It's rare that John, and Gregg especially are not present.

And you all act as front men, a unified tag team defending and deflecting from each other, feeding lines to each other for a straight man routine.

What a funny thing to not only calculate, but obsess over reporting. Like, again and again and again and stuff.

Takes all sorts, i suppose.

Secret has checked out all of our profiles and actually done the maths!

Astonishing.

Work of a minute Mothra, click on your names, easily available everywhere, you clowns infest the forum, Wink

read, calculate.

If I were you I would be embarrassed about the amount of time you spend here rather than trying to deride my very easy gathering of a number.

Yet you did, Secret. You took the time to do it. You thought about it, then you did it.

Kinda pathetic, don't you think?

Work of a minute Mothra. How many many minutes you spend here every day?

Pathetic you say? Grin

Pathetic? No. I'm here in down time while i'm at work. I'm rarely here in the evenings or on weekends.

You though, kinda stay all day, don't you? And night.

Back to top

If you can't be a good example, you have to be a horrible warning.

IP Logged

mothra Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 34535 Gender:	Re: Rules for banning members Reply #12 - Sep 12^th, 2017 at 3:52pm Still, i don't find myself interested in other people's time spent on here ... or their post count. Only you can know why it matters to you.
Back to top	If you can't be a good example, you have to be a horrible warning. IP Logged

Aussie

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 37678
Gender: male

Re: Rules for banning members
Reply #13 - Sep 12^th, 2017 at 3:52pm

Auggie wrote on Sep 12^th, 2017 at 3:43pm:

Process for banning a member:

1) the respective GMod, upon receiving a complaint, or observing a potential breach of rules shall proceed to make a charge (perhaps there could be a separate topic for charges??) and state their intention to ban said member, providing an explanation as to reasons behind the charge. (Think of the impeachment process).

2) the perpetrator shall have seventy-two hours to state their reasons and respond to the charge. During this time, they may retract a statement, apologize or express remorse over the respective post.

3) once the period of seventy-two hours has passed, a vote shall be taken among all of the GMods collectively. At least a majority of the whole number of Gmods must vote yeah (abstentions count as being against the charge) in order for the ban to occur.

4) the GMod then posts publicly the decision of the (Council?) and explains their reasons. Dissenters post their reasoning (much like the High Court).
-------------

Given the absence of all GMods except Vic (at the moment) that might not work.

Perhaps allow a GMod do his thing, make a decision alone (even execute a ban) but an automatic review is then done in a Senate (or whatever name) made up of elected Members....say maximum of five?

Back to top

IP Logged

Secret Wars

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 3928
Gender: male

Re: Rules for banning members
Reply #14 - Sep 12^th, 2017 at 3:52pm

mothra wrote on Sep 12^th, 2017 at 3:51pm: