Voting to ban members

Leah Starspectre wrote: My idea:

I'd forgo a vote and instead, set up a system of publicly documented warnings, to be marshalled by the Security Officer, under the eye of the council.

Each warning post must include the rule that was broken, and how.

After a set number of warnings, temporary ban. Further warnings would be a permanent ban.

If the is uncertainty if a rule was broken, the knights/council can confer about it.

I think this would hopefully lower the chance of personal bias.

We have a system like that. One disadvantage of this is the reporting can vary. For example at one point one member was going absolutely insane yet no mods were reporting the personnal attacks, wild accusations, legal and other threats.... but would fill another member's record with far-fetched theories of what they might have meant and the obscure way in which it broke the rules.

The knights were asked to vote as there were numerous complaints and accusations about this guest, yet the council could not find sufficient evidence of rulebreaking or otherwise noxious activity to warrant a ban. The VP membership affairs and one of the two security officers had been opposed to banning this guest.

Not that I have either the time or energy to find it, but I recall there being at least one temple thread outlining the code of conduct that temple members are/were expected to adhere to.

It's the task of individual temple members to stay informed, updated on, and compliant with these standards.

If people forget that this is a church and a recognized place of worship on an occasional basis, that is one thing.

Choosing to willfully ignore established rules and standards; and then boasting about such decisions publicly is another matter entirely. In my time here I have seen far senior members, with much better standing in the community; banned or otherwise excommunicated for far inferior offenses.

Choosing to intentionally and willfully ignore multiple private and public warnings is also a glaring problem in and of itself, as it indicates a complete lack of interest in being a cohesive part of this community.

Although TOTJO offers itself to the public, it is not a public owned entity. It is a privately owned and operated church which (comparatively) asks very little from its membership.

I have this basic reminder in the footer of each post I make here, and it's unfortunate to see it's yet to catch on.

Choosing to willfully ignore established rules and standards; and then boasting about such decisions publicly is another matter entirely. In my time here I have seen far senior members, with much better standing in the community; banned or otherwise excommunicated for far inferior offenses.

Who was it and what were the offenses?

Who was it and what were the offenses?

If you would like an itemized list, I'd be happy to provide you a (detailed) history of all previously banned members ranking either Apprentice or above. That is, when I have the time and energy to do so.

Otherwise, being a council member; I'm sure you have access to member records. I'm also sure you know which particular member(s) I'm referencing having been a key player in their public trials & consequent banning/excommunication.

EDIT:

In lieu of a complete list, here is the initial event I am referencing in the post above.

How to get excommunicated - and not even know why.

I've been the busiest Mod for many years now, but I tried to let others pick it up when I became Council Secretary a few years ago. So despite rens bs here, its more a case of very sparse and sporadic moderators coupled with the disinterest of Councillors in moderating. Yet I still do it if I happen to be online and see it, but I left Council Secretary role because I'd have less time.... but in accepting the differet natured role of Security Officer recently, I reported on questionable conduct of someone Council was trying todeal with in the 'questionable member thread' to supprt their decision making - until ren decided to misrepresent all this repeatidly in public as me acting biased lol. So Council then decided it would let Knights decide by vote.

I abstained anyway, but rens spinning bs again. I had to type this with my tv remote on the screen keyboard so probably wont reply as it a hand numb'er!

Kohadre wrote: Choosing to willfully ignore established rules and standards; and then boasting about such decisions publicly is another matter entirely. In my time here I have seen far senior members, with much better standing in the community; banned or otherwise excommunicated for far inferior offenses.

Tu quoque fallacy. You are suggesting that because other members have been unfairly banned, Kyrin should be unfairly banned as well. Is consistency in bad policy more important than correcting it?

Manu wrote:

Kohadre wrote: Choosing to willfully ignore established rules and standards; and then boasting about such decisions publicly is another matter entirely. In my time here I have seen far senior members, with much better standing in the community; banned or otherwise excommunicated for far inferior offenses.

Tu quoque fallacy. You are suggesting that because other members have been unfairly banned, Kyrin should be unfairly banned as well. Is consistency in bad policy more important than correcting it?

No, that's not what I'm suggesting. However, interesting interpretation.

Kyrin has made her presence known on the forum. From what I've seen of it, it has only ever been antagonistic or otherwise hostile. What I am actually saying within the post you (incorrectly) attempted to quote, is that if anything Kyrin has had her behavior excused many times over or otherwise outright ignored.

This, in comparison to long standing members who either got on the wrong side of a thread/discussion, or bruised the emotions of particular staff/council members which consequently lead to public trial.

Kohadre wrote: Kyrin has made her presence known on the forum. From what I've seen of it, it has only ever been antagonistic or otherwise hostile. What I am actually saying within the post you (incorrectly) attempted to quote, is that if anything Kyrin has had her behavior excused many times over or otherwise outright ignored.

This, in comparison to long standing members who either got on the wrong side of a thread/discussion, or bruised the emotions of particular staff/council members which consequently lead to public trial.

From my point of view, this is an improvement. Long standing members getting banned in the past would be a bad thing, so Kyrin (who by the way, has not been a Knight here and thus should not be held up to as high a standard as Knights are) getting cut some slack seems like an improvement to me.

I will grant you that Kyrin has been at times explicitly hostile; she's not into the whole passive-aggressive stealth disrespect that other members are so fond of. Both styles can be disrespectful. Only one style gets frowned upon.

Manu wrote:

Warning: Spoiler!

Kohadre wrote: Kyrin has made her presence known on the forum. From what I've seen of it, it has only ever been antagonistic or otherwise hostile. What I am actually saying within the post you (incorrectly) attempted to quote, is that if anything Kyrin has had her behavior excused many times over or otherwise outright ignored.

This, in comparison to long standing members who either got on the wrong side of a thread/discussion, or bruised the emotions of particular staff/council members which consequently lead to public trial.

From my point of view, this is an improvement. Long standing members getting banned in the past would be a bad thing, so Kyrin (who by the way, has not been a Knight here and thus should not be held up to as high a standard as Knights are) getting cut some slack seems like an improvement to me.

I will grant you that Kyrin has been at times explicitly hostile; she's not into the whole passive-aggressive stealth disrespect that other members are so fond of. Both styles can be disrespectful. Only one style gets frowned upon.

There is a huge difference between using expletives within a post, and putting careful thought into an argument which differentiates from a conflicting viewpoint. There's an even greater difference from writing out a post to engage in debate, and writing out a post with the specific intention to emotionally charge specific member(s) with the end goal to incite a fight within the forums.

As far as "passive-aggressive stealth disrespect" is concerned, if any member on the forum has to put forth the effort to deconstruct an original post, and then look for specific things to become offended about, and then go further as to choose to become offended about them, I fail to see how that becomes the authors fault. Taking things out of context and then reinterpreting them in a response is a further attempt to incite arguments which otherwise wouldn't have, nor needed to exist.

As I interpret it, one of the key foundations of our doctrine is the ignorance or otherwise outright dismissal of emotion. As Jedi, we should seek to not feel, or at the very least not allow ourselves to be emotionally influenced by others.

To put forth an outright hostile presence within the community, and then seek to have that presence excused; accepted; and celebrated goes against my understanding of what this community was founded upon and what it seeks to accomplish.

Kohadre wrote:

Manu wrote:

Warning: Spoiler!

Kohadre wrote: Kyrin has made her presence known on the forum. From what I've seen of it, it has only ever been antagonistic or otherwise hostile. What I am actually saying within the post you (incorrectly) attempted to quote, is that if anything Kyrin has had her behavior excused many times over or otherwise outright ignored.

This, in comparison to long standing members who either got on the wrong side of a thread/discussion, or bruised the emotions of particular staff/council members which consequently lead to public trial.

From my point of view, this is an improvement. Long standing members getting banned in the past would be a bad thing, so Kyrin (who by the way, has not been a Knight here and thus should not be held up to as high a standard as Knights are) getting cut some slack seems like an improvement to me.

I will grant you that Kyrin has been at times explicitly hostile; she's not into the whole passive-aggressive stealth disrespect that other members are so fond of. Both styles can be disrespectful. Only one style gets frowned upon.

There is a huge difference between using expletives within a post, and putting careful thought into an argument which differentiates from a conflicting viewpoint. There's an even greater difference from writing out a post to engage in debate, and writing out a post with the specific intention to emotionally charge specific member(s) with the end goal to incite a fight within the forums.

As far as "passive-aggressive stealth disrespect" is concerned, if any member on the forum has to put forth the effort to deconstruct an original post, and then look for specific things to become offended about, and then go further as to choose to become offended about them, I fail to see how that becomes the authors fault. Taking things out of context and then reinterpreting them in a response is a further attempt to incite arguments which otherwise wouldn't have, nor needed to exist.

As I interpret it, one of the key foundations of our doctrine is the ignorance or otherwise outright dismissal of emotion. As Jedi, we should seek to not feel, or at the very least not allow ourselves to be emotionally influenced by others.

To put forth an outright hostile presence within the community, and then seek to have that presence excused; accepted; and celebrated goes against my understanding of what this community was founded upon and what it seeks to accomplish.

So, I will admit openly right now that I have broken every rule above while learning my path here. I will actually admit to engaging Kyrin in this style, because I was pissed. That lead me a bit to reading everything less emotionally, suddenly I didn't dislike a lot of people I did. Kyrin know I still don't approve of all the ways she handled/s conversations. Directly, during this time we conversed during active conversation and forums, I noticed some improvement in tone. Knights if you have already voted mentioning this with is a mute point. But, I know this was approached before with Senan (and was being done well and by a knight and someone much more versed in argument than myself but that pairing mentor situation is something to mention.

I have to become very staunchly against banning in all honesty, unless, there is no solution or it's one of the major breaking of TOS and well, certain sets of morality and actions.

I can;t believe I am defending Kyrin (believe me, wouldn't have seen it coming about 2 years ago ). But it's bigger than just this instance. So, I ask this to get my point and why I have second thoughts too my older reaction. Is this now the line? This is the you are banned for directed, indirect and sometimes straight Dickishness?

I guess I just need to know that, because I think, it is exactly where we place this line that decided whether we as Jedi are acting emotionally or not. Obviously, there is more to this discussion with in the knights and council I am not privy too so, there is a place of ignorance in this response. Whatever the decision is or was honestly there were some solid grounds to it and I won't argue with the outcome.

Just a question and my 2 cents wrapped up into one.

Much Love, Respect and Peace,
Kobos