Wiki: ET Single Forum Ban Protocol

[Tishri1]

Congregational Area Single Forum Ban Protocol:
To be used in the SUB-Forums within the Congregational Area ONLY

To be used when a Congregational Area SUB-forum has no protocol developed of its own to effectively handle the would be "serial rules violator" That means the member has already proven through many violations already that he is not there to do anything but stir the pot and upset the apple cart;)....It is only after many violations already that you will want to proceed in this direction :thumbsup:

Effectively using this protocol produces "tough love" no nonsense results, but has in its body the wording needed to apply "grace" as well...


Any Congregational Sub-forum that specifically rejects this policy will not be subject to it, and any Congregational Sub-forum that accepts it should paste a link to it in their forum's Wiki and/or in their FSRs Stickied in their Forum before beginning to apply it.



1st Violation: Send the member a PM that there was a Rule Violation and include a warning that the next violation of this rule will put them at risk* for a 24-48 hour CF ban.
2nd Violation: May Issue a 24-48 hour CF ban* with a PM warning that the next Violation will put them at risk* for a 7 day FSB(Forum Specific Ban).
3rd Violation: May Issue a 7 day FSB ban* and a PM that with the next Violation they will be at risk* of a 2-4 week FSB (for that specific Congregational SUB-forum).
4th Violation: May Issue the 2-4 week FSB* and a warning that the next violation will put them at risk* for a FSB of a whole year (for that specific SUB-forum in the Congregational area) ...**Counsel is also recommended at this point
5th Violation
Ban Committee will form- reviewed by all available ET Area staff with 6 months or more experience.
Vote taken on a year long FSB- taken by all available ET Area staff that have this minimum 6 months experience. All members of this ban committee will have equal voting power. The vote to move to a FSB of one year, will have to be approved by a 3/4 majority.
No 3/4 majority-If a 3/4 majority can not be had then the FSB will automatically be issued for a period of 6 months, and a PM with clear a warning that any continued infraction after that will result in a year long FSB.
E-bans for socks- An immediate e-ban will be given for the creation or use of a sock account to circumvent a forum-wide or site-wide ban

Area Ban- A Warning to the member also that should this member continue his acts of violation in other SUB-forums in the Congregational area, he will be at risk* of an AREA BAN of the entire Congregational area for a year.

Violating a FSB-
A member who violates a FSB at step #1 will receive a 1-day site wide ban.
A member who violates a FSB at step #2 will receive a 7-day site wide ban.
A member who violates a FSB at step #3 will receive a 30-day site wide ban.
Violations of FSBs of any length will result in a SWB of the same length...Bans given for violation of an FSB are not subject to appeal.


* "at risk" was added to insure grace could be applied and yet still leave staff with full authority for those "tough love" cases:thumbsup:

**NOTE about Pastoral Counsel:
After the 4th Violation it is good to seek counsel from the Pastoral Team for your member and yourself to see if any support for changes in behavior can be offered to salvage this person's account. (Also assuming that the staff has been encouraging a change in this member as well). A summary of this person's actions should be brought with a statement from the team. ALSO NOTE THAT PASTORAL STAFF DO NOT BAN THEY COUNSEL ONLY




Please see discussion post #2
see poll (http://foru.ms/t6116462-poll-finished-for-et-ban.html)

snapshot taken 8/27/07
snapshot taken 9/17/07

[Tishri1]

What do you think?

[Tishri1]

Just to clear things up (because the sups and admins already hashed this one out;)) This is not THE ONLY way to work reports involving rules violations, but is one way to deal with problem posters effectively .....If each forum chooses another way thats fine and if they want to fall back on this protocol thats fine to...just make a note of that in your forum wikis and stickys ok:wave:

Also you need to have a clear idea that you are dealing with a problem poster so apply grace untill your sure....use the wording"at risk" in your PMs, and then untill you do have assurance that you are in fact dealing with a serial rule violator, apply grace AND let them know that is what you are doing...

"Mr V, we have decided to apply grace in this case because we believe you just made a mistake and didnt really mean to call Mr M an XYZ again;)....but do realize you are still at risk of being banned for _______(x amount of time) and we hope we dont have to find you saying that about anyone anymore"

hope that explains a little more:wave::hug:

[RobNJ]

One problem.... Must it be written in Welch's Grape Juice? :doh:



^_^ ^_^

[Tishri1]

One problem.... Must it be written in Welch's Grape Juice? :doh:



^_^ ^_^lol we could add that to the wiki I guess hehehe I guess I just love the color purple^_^^_^

[Jim47]

Will be reviewed by all Area (ET) staff with 6 months or more experience.
A vote will be taken by all Area (ET) staff that have this minimum 6 months experience.
I for see a problem with this stipulation as it implies that "all" CF staff with 6 months or more experience must "be available & must partake in the decision"

What happens if someone is gone for 2-3 weeks or more?

I think changing it to all CF staff available with a minumum of 75% of staff listed be part of the decision.

Does that make sence. It could be worded better perhaps, but I do think we need to allow for people being on vacations and leaves etc.

[Tishri1]

yes I see what you mean I will put "all available ET Area staff"

I am gonna snapshot this so we can use it but it can still be trweaked and snapshotted again later too:wave:

[Jim47]

yes I see what you mean I will put "all available ET Area staff"

I am gonna snapshot this so we can use it but it can still be trweaked and snapshotted again later too:wave:


:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[BelindaP]

This is just wrong on at least two counts. For one, it flies in the face of the CF-wide banning protocol which states that a person needs to be a disruption to all of 4U to get banned.

For another, no single forum should have the right to ban somebody from 4U. If you want to institute a year-long FSB from a particular congregation, then fine. But banning somebody from all of 4U is draconian.

[constance]

**NOTE about Pastoral Counsel:After the 4th Violation it is good to seek counsel from the Pastoral Team for your member and yourself to see if any support for changes in behavior can be offered to salvage this person's account. (Also assuming that the staff has been encouraging a change in this member as well). A summary of this person's actions should be brought with a statement from the team.


I need to ask that it be made perfectly clear that the pastoral team does NOT give input in a ban. If you refer someone to us, we will talk to them.

[boughtwithaprice]

This is just wrong on at least two counts. For one, it flies in the face of the CF-wide banning protocol which states that a person needs to be a disruption to all of 4U to get banned.

For another, no single forum should have the right to ban somebody from 4U. If you want to institute a year-long FSB from a particular congregation, then fine. But banning somebody from all of 4U is draconian.
I have to agree. The congregational fora do not rule over the entire 4U site, and this wiki is a draconian power grab. I can see a permanent FSB in a congregational fora, but not a site wide ban

[Lindon Tinuviel]

Repeating the above, you have no authority for this:

# 1st Violation: Send the member a PM that there was a Rule Violation and include a warning that the next violation of this rule will put them at risk* for a 24-48 hour CF ban.
# 2nd Violation: May Issue a 24-48 hour CF ban* with a PM warning that the next Violation will put them at risk* for a 7 day CF ban.
# 3rd Violation: May Issue a 7 day CF ban* and a PM that with the next Violation they will be at risk* of a 2-4 week FSB.

or this:

*"at risk" was added to insure grace could be applied and yet still leave staff with full authority for those "tough love" cases

You should unsnapshot it immediately..

[Tonks]

This is stupid. A permanent ban from the entire Congregational area is, likewise, stupid.

What's next...booting folks off the site for being obnoxious in report threads?

[Gwenyfur]

What's next...booting folks off the site for being obnoxious in report threads?
oh too dream :sorry:


this is entirely wrong, no member or staff discussion, it's nearly completely opposite of the current Foru.ms procedures, and while congregations fora are somewhat autonomous, their policies CANNOT contridict Foru.ms site wide policy...

this is just wrong...

[Lindon Tinuviel]

I fixed your Wiki. Can we get it snapshotted now, please? Thanks.

[Gwenyfur]

This is the current wiki for Foru.ms ban policies:
1:A: E-ban - an eban will be given to members with less than 100 posts, who troll/spam the chat room, or post messages/pictures in pm, or open forums with sexual, violent, and/or illegal content. Any staff member with access to CP can issue this ban, and file a report.
This ban is not appealable.

B: A 7-30 day ban will be given to members with more than 100 posts, who troll/spam the chat room, or post messages/pictures in pm, or open forums with sexual, violent,vulgar or illegal content. This ban may be given by any member of staff,and is for serious violations only.
(sexualy,violent,illegal content)
If needed, this member will be e-banned first, while the bad messages are removed,to avoid exposure and distress
to other members.

In the case the bad behavior as described in 1:B continues,the member will be banned for 12 months.
If a member is considered a danger to the forums, or other members, a permanent ban will be considered.

The member will have a right to appeal, also, the member will be offered counseling by the pastoral team, or a senior staff member.

2: Short FSB(forum specific ban) or CF ban for members who are constantly breaking the CF rules, or harassing members/staff .
Before a member can receive a forum-specific ban, a team leader or moderator with more than 6 months of experience must warn the member that they are in danger of being banned from the forum, and offer to help them modify their behavior. If these steps do not resolve the problem, the staff member can issue a ban for up to 30 days.
If a team who is having problems with a member agrees that a cooling off ban is needed, the team has to first warn this member of the possibility of 24-48 hour ban.
If the member does not respect the warning, 24-48 hour ban can be issued by a team.
In case this ban has not helped,the team can issue a FSB /forum ban up to 30 days, and offer a counseling.

Members have a right to appeal to any ban longer than 48 hours, they will be also informed of the Pastoral Team and offered pastoral help.


3: Long term ban for members who are seriously disrupting the peace and safety of the CF members and staff, following a short term ban in the last 30 days.

A ban should be discussed by a moderating team before it is imposed.
The member must be allowed to participate in the discussion, as long as they do not violate any forum rules.

In the case the team is unable to reach decision,a public poll will be created, with the details available for viewing and participation by all members.

A public vote will not be appealable.

[HowardDean]

oh too dream :sorry:

:D

[invisible trousers]

edit whoops

[Q]

as far as I know this wiki is against current forums rules
(no members can be excluded from any subforum,but teens)

the forum ban protocol must be applied in any subforum,and please do come and participate in the discussion to make this protocol right
http://foru.ms/t5728478-wiki-procedure-for-banning-members.html

[Tishri1]

This is just wrong on at least two counts. For one, it flies in the face of the CF-wide banning protocol which states that a person needs to be a disruption to all of 4U to get banned.

For another, no single forum should have the right to ban somebody from 4U. If you want to institute a year-long FSB from a particular congregation, then fine. But banning somebody from all of 4U is draconian.I am fine with that really
changing the wiki to strike a perm ban but leaving in the FSB of one year....see how that looks

I need to ask that it be made perfectly clear that the pastoral team does NOT give input in a ban. If you refer someone to us, we will talk to them. Yes I will add your words

I have to agree. The congregational fora do not rule over the entire 4U site, and this wiki is a draconian power grab. I can see a permanent FSB in a congregational fora, but not a site wide banOK changed it it will only say a FBS not a site wide one of a year

Repeating the above, you have no authority for this:



or this:



You should unsnapshot it immediately..we do go ask Ron and Erwin to explain

This is stupid. A permanent ban from the entire Congregational area is, likewise, stupid.

What's next...booting folks off the site for being obnoxious in report threads?Flaming and slander again :sigh: IT IS a FSB (Forum Specific Ban) which means from ONE forum with in this area called Congregations *and YOU KNOW THAT

oh too dream :sorry:


this is entirely wrong, no member or staff discussion, it's nearly completely opposite of the current Foru.ms procedures, and while congregations fora are somewhat autonomous, their policies CANNOT contridict Foru.ms site wide policy...

this is just wrong...Yes we can!!!! Ask Ron as long as the members in Congregational areas and staff here dont complain we sure can do this

I fixed your Wiki. Can we get it snapshotted now, please? Thanks.I rolled it back

as far as I know this wiki is against current forums rules
(no members can be excluded from any subforum,but teens)

the forum ban protocol must be applied in any subforum,and please do come and participate in the discussion to make this protocol right
http://foru.ms/t5728478-wiki-procedure-for-banning-members.html

WE ARE NOT EXCLUDING MEMBERS FROM SUBFORUMS WHERE DID YOU GET THAT did you even read the wiki?:doh:this is not against any thing Erwin is trying to do in here....This is exactly what he wants to see happen.... this is an Area that is developing its Area Rules and its Forums are developing their own FSRs to meet its OWN needs and as long as ITS MEMBERS and STAFF dont disagree then it stays sorry talk to RON :wave:
The problem is that bureaucracy is having a hissy fit because it cannot control every member in 4U but it was never suppose to, Erwin was sick of Exec Type control and gave it to the Forum Members, the forum members need peace in here and we are gonna provide that peace by giving them what they need if they dont like something we will poll them and change it for them

I am cool with changing the point about site wide bans in our ET Ban Protocol we dont need them anyway so consider that done:thumbsup:

please ask Ron your self if you dont believe we have every right to set up a Government that meets the needs of its members ,and that if it is set up differently from the site one thats ok too as long as we dont impose it on those who dont want it ,and as long as we dont impose it on 4U

he knew about this and gave us the green light

[chaoschristian]

I reformatted the text for ease of reading.

I added this clause:

Any congregational sub-forum that specifically rejects this policy will not be subject to it.

[BelindaP]

I'm not a big fan of year-long bans, but I do know that there could be a use with some troublesome members. Can we make it so that they get one-year bans from specific congregations rather than the entire Ecumenical forum--with perhaps the caveat that future violations could lead to a ban from the entire Ecumenical forum.

[Tishri1]

I reformatted the text for ease of reading.

I added this clause:

Any congregational sub-forum that specifically rejects this policy will not be subject to it.I will go one further for you

Any Congregational Sub-forum that specifically rejects this policy will not be subject to it, and any Congregational Sub-forum that accepts it should paste a link to it in their forum's Wiki and/or in their FSRs Stickied in their forum, before beginning to apply it :thumbsup:



I'm not a big fan of year-long bans, but I do know that there could be a use with some troublesome members. Can we make it so that they get one-year bans from specific congregations rather than the entire Ecumenical forum--with perhaps the caveat that future violations could lead to a ban from the entire Ecumenical forum.I dont think you understand so I will go back over it and change the wording to make it more clear for you but in a nutshell:
Congregations is an AREA not a forum per se, because it contains many forums all unique and all requiring its own membership and government we dont call the AREA a forum does that make sence? SO your answer is we NEVER considered applying a FSB to the whole Congregations Area, it was ALWAYS meant to apply to a specific forum within the Congregational Area...does that make sence?

I will change the wording so its very clear AND add your part about making an Area Ban if the troublemaker jumps from place to place after being banned from two or even three forums within this Congregational Area ok?:wave:

[BelindaP]

Thanks, Tishri. :hug:

[Tishri1]

your welcome:hug:

[chaoschristian]

I will go one further for you

Any Congregational Sub-forum that specifically rejects this policy will not be subject to it, and any Congregational Sub-forum that accepts it should paste a link to it in their forum's Wiki and/or in their FSRs Stickied in their forum, before beginning to apply it :thumbsup:

That's a good edit. Well done.

[DedicatedLittleFaith]

With the latest edits, I think it is fine.

I was VERY uncomfortable with the idea of banning someone from the ENTIRE site,,, just because of a problem in one specific area.

FSBs are perfect to solve such issues :)

[Tenebrae]

not relevant any more

[Tishri1]

With the latest edits, I think it is fine.

I was VERY uncomfortable with the idea of banning someone from the ENTIRE site,,, just because of a problem in one specific area.

FSBs are perfect to solve such issues :)see that was a misunderstanding in the first place we never meant to ban folks that way:thumbsup: but you know after staring at something for along time looking at all the fine details, sometimes you forget to take a step back and see if the big picture still makes sense, that one was my bad sooooo

sorry about that folks, glad its all cleared up now:wave:

[D'Ann]

Finally, a wiki rule with some back bone. Very good Tishri1. This particular rule wiki thingie has my full support Tishri1. It's a relief to see some back bone... finally.

G-d Bless You.

[Tishri1]

thanks Debbie:hug::hug::hug::hug::hug::hug::hug::hug::hug::hug::kiss:

[DeaconDean]

How about including a procedure (as in the case of the chat-box) where "Emergency Bans" of 24 hours be written in, in case the need arises in case some "member" comes in and spouts profanity, or lewd remarks? This would give members the ability to "police" their own respective sub-forums and topics, and allow Mods, Sups, and Admins, the time to review the action to see if it was justified or not.

Oft times, there is not a Mod, Sup, or Admin, of the Baptist area, online at night. Or, can any Mod, Sup, Admin do this in their place?

God Bless

Till all are one.

[Lindon Tinuviel]

I'd just like to take this opportunity to state that I am an idiot, and that anything I've said in this thread is the direct result of the aforementioned idiocy.

Thank you for listening.

[Tishri1]

You know I wish I could give all mods the power to Eban I will look into that but YES any Sup or Admin (Blue or Green) can Ban someone quickly like that for you......:scratch:I forget ...why were the Mods not given this power......*Tish starting to wonder.....thats not always a good sign:P

[Q]

I dont have the time to read this thread,but the ban wiki is being developed for the whole forum,and I will insist,that subforums will be not allowed to create any rules in contradiction to the foru.ms policy on bans.

I agree 100% that your own rules need to be included in te process,and you should have guidelines how to deal with problem members,and what criteria to use to brand them problematic,but that is all-the rest must be done
the same way as the staff protocol for the entire site
will state

i made edits in the foru.ms wiki on bans,please contribute here:http://foru.ms/t5728478


allowing each subforum a separate wiki on bans,is not fair to members,the same,as createing any rules in contradiction to the site rules

this would make exclusive clubs,and create confussion,and make appeal process almost imposible

[Zacharias]

I have to agree. The congregational fora do not rule over the entire 4U site, and this wiki is a draconian power grab. I can see a permanent FSB in a congregational fora, but not a site wide ban

I agree. If someone is causing problems in a forum then a FSB would be good. However I don't think anyone should risk being completely banned unless they are trolling. If that person gets FSBs from ten different forums, FSB him from those ten.

It's also a bit strange to do a few short all-forums bans before the forum-specific ban. Logically wouldn't it be the other way around?

[Jim47]

This has gotten entirely too wordy and complicated. The more words you have the greater chance of confusion and mistakes. The e-ban procedure we have had is 1/10 the size of this. Reules and protcal need to be kept simple and clear. This is really necessary as they are constantly being changed and its not right to expect staff to spend 20 minutes studying the protocal before they begin a ban. I'm not sure someone could walk away after 20 minutes and have a clear understanding of the current wording. But I have no time to suggest a change right now.

[Tishri1]

I'd just like to take this opportunity to state that I am an idiot, and that anything I've said in this thread is the direct result of the aforementioned idiocy.

Thank you for listening.Well I love you for that PM you sent and I am glad you are seeing this the way it is now ...your not an idiot:hug::hug::hug::hug::hug:

I dont have the time to read this thread,but the ban wiki is being developed for the whole forum,and I will insist,that subforums will be not allowed to create any rules in contradiction to the foru.ms policy on bans.

I agree 100% that your own rules need to be included in te process,and you should have guidelines how to deal with problem members,and what criteria to use to brand them problematic,but that is all-the rest must be done
the same way as the staff protocol for the entire site
will state

i made edits in the foru.ms wiki on bans,please contribute here:http://foru.ms/t5728478


allowing each subforum a separate wiki on bans,is not fair to members,the same,as createing any rules in contradiction to the site rules

this would make exclusive clubs,and create confussion,and make appeal process almost imposibleyou should take the time to read this thread before you make the wrong assumptions

And Please talk to Ron and Erwin, you are trying to take CF back to the days of Top Heavy Bureaucracy and Erwin changed that for a reason, havent you been listening I checked with them before I did this, we can do this if enough people want it

I agree. If someone is causing problems in a forum then a FSB would be good. However I don't think anyone should risk being completely banned unless they are trolling. If that person gets FSBs from ten different forums, FSB him from those ten.

It's also a bit strange to do a few short all-forums bans before the forum-specific ban. Logically wouldn't it be the other way around?there is no complete ban in this protocol at all:thumbsup: I hope that helps:wave:The 2 day and 7 day are wake up calls and were in line with the protocol we used before but I could change those to FSBs too I prefer the shock of a wake up call at least for the 2 day one how would that work?

This has gotten entirely too wordy and complicated. The more words you have the greater chance of confusion and mistakes. The e-ban procedure we have had is 1/10 the size of this. Reules and protcal need to be kept simple and clear. This is really necessary as they are constantly being changed and its not right to expect staff to spend 20 minutes studying the protocal before they begin a ban. I'm not sure someone could walk away after 20 minutes and have a clear understanding of the current wording. But I have no time to suggest a change right now.
Jim we could keep the steps in there but take the "notes" and make them smaller so the steps stand out better:thumbsup:

[Q]

no i will not read it,because i dont need to

Erwin said wiki is for all members who want to to decide,not small tearaway groups..Ron also has to respect that,whoever he is

have you checked the wiki for forum bans?
you would see,that there is no need for this wiki,and you should focus on making the whole forum wiki better,and then adapt the part relevant to subforums,to work for the members here

the ban protocol will be designed to work with appeal system,and it will be for entire forums,like it or not

that is no bureocracy,that is being fair ,and not confusig members,by contradicting rules all over the place

before you shout at me,you need to check the ban protocol,and contribute,if you have any objections

exclusive clubs were no way Erwin's idea..where did you get that from?

[Jim47]

Jim we could keep the steps in there but take the "notes" and make them smaller so the steps stand out better:thumbsup:



Yes if we could do that it would be most helpful. If I get the chance I will try to do that but it may take me a while, I'm just real busy here and have some things at home to do as well.

[KarenJoy]

trish great job

[Cotmweasel]

Tishri1,


I think it looks great! :thumbsup:

[Lisa0315]

I have one concern:

What happens if in a heated discussion, enough violations occur in a single thread and day to get the person banned or moves them from Warning 1 to Warning 4 within a day?

Lisa

[IntoTheCrimsonSky]

Forgive me if someone else asked this already, I only have a few minutes here and was curious.

If these FSB rules are voted into a forum, can the forum still implement their own additions or changes to them? I think they sound rather good as a current standard, while the other rules and stuff are being worked out, but it's not quite what I'd like to see in the long run.

In this case, would it be suggested that I vote no and just let us work out our own, or vote yes? Slightly confused.

Blessings and Love,
Sarah

[Andy Broadley]

I have serious misgivings on this

Several of the congregational forums have strong hard line elements which could use these rules to severely resrict and control what is said and posted.

We have enough schism and division on this site without giving 'em rules to enforce it.

Unless the baby really did get chucked out with the bathwater, then the aim of The-site-formally-known-as-CF remains the unity of all Christians as one body

Giving the Sanhedrens on here a great big stick to hit people with is gonna do little to further that cause I suspect.


So......no

[BAFRIEND]

This is a great idea. It allows for a person who gets carried away or emotional on a topic to just be banned from that specific forum but remain with their friends in their own forums. Seems fair and great and within the context of Christian understanding and fairness.

[Q]

this is Erwins post:

This site is based on the 5 Christian Principles so no rules can contradict those 5 Christian Principles. These represent the "Constitution".

Forum-wide Rules are the "Federal Laws".

Subforum Rules are the "State Laws".

In general, the rules should all be consistent, but State Laws can refine the Federal Laws a bit further. That's my view anyway.



It is not going to happen,for forums to have their own ban protocols,but they will be able to have their own criteria,for banning members.

[Tishri1]

no i will not read it,because i dont need to

Erwin said wiki is for all members who want to to decide,not small tearaway groups..Ron also has to respect that,whoever he is

have you checked the wiki for forum bans?
you would see,that there is no need for this wiki,and you should focus on making the whole forum wiki better,and then adapt the part relevant to subforums,to work for the members here

the ban protocol will be designed to work with appeal system,and it will be for entire forums,like it or not

that is no bureocracy,that is being fair ,and not confusig members,by contradicting rules all over the place

before you shout at me,you need to check the ban protocol,and contribute,if you have any objections

exclusive clubs were no way Erwin's idea..where did you get that from?Ron is Erwins right hand man and Erwin and Ron ok'ed me doing this...I can NOT impose it on all the forum areas(4U) and I dont want to.... AND as I said before EVEN within The CA(Congregational Area)I will not IMPOSE it it on anyone, it is available for forums in here to use if they like it :clap:or for forums who dont have a ban protocol wikied and if they choose to, they can use it:clap: no one is forcing this on anyone, but you seem to be trying to force us OUT of using it which you cannot do

Yes if we could do that it would be most helpful. If I get the chance I will try to do that but it may take me a while, I'm just real busy here and have some things at home to do as well.I did it Jim:thumbsup:

I have one concern:

What happens if in a heated discussion, enough violations occur in a single thread and day to get the person banned or moves them from Warning 1 to Warning 4 within a day?

LisaWe have a member who after several RFEs and Staff edits and deletions (many many reports worth) showed us she was a candidate for this protocol and THEN we started using it so now we are only on step three with her but she started showing us months ago she was not in our area for fun and fellowship....does that give you a good reason not to worry ? I will explain even more ways it cant be abused if you need me too

oh here is another way....we dont want forums to abuse this and that is why step 5 is such a great safe guard "all available and experienced Staff will get together to form a ban committee" and they decide if this member should be banned... that is really a good safe guard after going thru all these steps to have a committee then review what was said and done BEFORE banning anyone for a year in any particular forum:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

BTW this protocol takes months to process even should some one WANT to be banned(we do have those who are asking for us to ban them I am afraid to say its very sad but we do)
1st a warning=takes 1 day
2nd a 2 day ban and a warning=takes 4 days 1 for breaking rules, 2 for the ban and 1 to break rules again
3rd a 7 day ban and a warning=8 days , 7 for the ban and 1 to break the rules again
4th takes anywhere from 15 days -31 days=14-30 for the ban and 1 day to break the rules again
then finally the 5th wich of course would be up to a year

so to get from a single warning to a FSB of a year will take 45 days if the person is REALLY trying to get banned ...it cannot be done over night or in one or two days:thumbsup: Now how is that for keeping it free from staff abuse:thumbsup:

Forgive me if someone else asked this already, I only have a few minutes here and was curious.

If these FSB rules are voted into a forum, can the forum still implement their own additions or changes to them? I think they sound rather good as a current standard, while the other rules and stuff are being worked out, but it's not quite what I'd like to see in the long run.

In this case, would it be suggested that I vote no and just let us work out our own, or vote yes? Slightly confused.

Blessings and Love,
SarahYes each forum can have FSRs that impliment these or even change them slightly to suite your forum....the concensus from your forum is needed either way.... if you have a forum that rejects this or any protocol you need to find out what they want and make a wiki for them according to their needs and use the site rules if that is what you want as well...the site rules are for any forums that have no customized protocol of their own, Or choose not to have any FSRs:thumbsup: If you want them for now vote yes:thumbsup:

this is Erwins post:

This site is based on the 5 Christian Principles so no rules can contradict those 5 Christian Principles. These represent the "Constitution".

Forum-wide Rules are the "Federal Laws".

Subforum Rules are the "State Laws".

In general, the rules should all be consistent, but State Laws can refine the Federal Laws a bit further. That's my view anyway.



It is not going to happen,for forums to have their own ban protocols,but they will be able to have their own criteria,for banning members.I underlined Erwins Words State laws or FSRs refine and that is what we are doing refining and having a protocol that helps US better than the site rules do...I was working with the main WIKI for a long time when Ron turned me onto what I knew to be true already that the forums have rights to self govern as long as their member agree with any FSR put in place none of the ET Staff seem to mind and the Polls are in place to see if the members do so far I dont see a problem

EVEN AFTER the agreement is found, through each of the forums polls, Each forum who wants this will still have to actually Wiki and Sticki this into each of their forums to own this, so please if you have been one of the few naysayers who have been condemning this from the start dont say I am not crossing every T and dotting every I for this one, as I most certainly am:thumbsup::thumbsup:

ok I hope I have helped answer everyones questions and concerns

PS I have implemented all the changes requested in here and those I didnt that were honest requests I have PMed to Ron to find answers thanks for being patient I WILL find out ok?:hug:.....

I will check back for more comments soon:hug::hug::hug::hug::hug:

[Tishri1]

This is a great idea. It allows for a person who gets carried away or emotional on a topic to just be banned from that specific forum but remain with their friends in their own forums. Seems fair and great and within the context of Christian understanding and fairness.
YES YES exactly:thumbsup::thumbsup:

[flaglady]

I'm totally in favour of this - despite all the bilge that's been poured on it. It is a work of a good heart and an honest one. Anyone that accuses our admin of nefarious intent, or implies it, is totally barking up the wrong tree!

This protocol is soooo needed in our area. That some of you should come in crying foul play shows you have no idea what we contend with in this AREA and in some of its forums. It's no joke and very often staff are between a rock and a hard place where the miscreant is intransigent and the members are crying 'foul' because no action seems to be forthcoming. Hands tied and feet shackled are no way to mod a forum - or perhaps y'all haven't been in that unhappy place.

[JAS4Yeshua]

I can say that Tishri is on the right track, doing what is necessary. She is bringing an idea out for discussion and refinement, and opening it to individual forums to vote upon. If it is accepted by a forum, they can use it. If it is rejected by a forum, they don't have to use it.

Personally, I think it is a good idea. I also question the year-long ban, but I can see the necessity of it in extreme cases.

[Father Rick]

Tishri...

While I like what you're shooting for here, there is one HUGE problem with the protocols you're working on here.


You're working under the assumption that we actually have an appeal system.

Currently, there is no such appeal system... and it doesn't seem to be high priority to get one in place and working. Some staff are working on it... but it's very slow going.


Soooo.... there is absolutely no way that your wiki here can be enforced at this point in time, and will not be able to be enforced for any time in the near future. A couple of months from now it might be a different story.


Erwin's protocols put an appeal system in place as a "checks and balances" to avoid staff over-handedness. Once the appeals process kicks in, it can over-rule any of the disciplinary actions taken on each step (except for a public poll for banning). Right now, you could have someone at steps 4, 5, or whatever, under these protocols... then an appeal throw out several of the disciplinary actions and put the person back at step 1.

We have to finish what's already started (and more foundational) before adding in additional protocols.

[flaglady]

Really? :scratch: How can there not be?

[Tishri1]

one I have been told appeals are open, two then no rules can be inforced as in Appeals ANY action from Staff can be appealed so NO ACTION can take place.......That just doesnt make sence now does it:wave:

I am glad you like it :hug:please notice that we do have a very strict protocol to cover staff abuse so I doubt any appeal would have to be toiled over to long:thumbsup:

[MariaRegina]

I am against this proposal as worded.

It leaves a nice loophole for particularly draconian moderators to impose their particular beliefs on some members and silence these members who may actually hold the orthodox faith.

[Tishri1]

can you explain?:wave:

[flaglady]

Indeed - I would like to hear the explanation for the allegation that there are "particularly draconian moderators to impose their particular beliefs on some members and silence these members who may actually hold the orthodox faith" since we have a stringent protocol of consensus to obviate that very thing.

Mods cannot take unilateral action.

And, as Tishri has been at pains to explain, this whole process is lengthy and involves a LOT of people, so there would not be an opportunity for them to do so anyway.

[MariaRegina]

I will send a PM, flaglady.

Thanks.

Most mods at CF are doing great jobs ... but some, well, I will explain in a PM.

[flaglady]

Got your pm, Aria, and will still repeat that this process CANNOT be enacted by a single individual in anyway. If you read through Tishri's post 47 (http://foru.ms/showpost.php?p=38414110&postcount=47) again, you will see the lengths we have gone to to make the whole process involved and protracted enough to prevent that very thing. Renegades or not, there is NO WAY this can be used by 'draconion mods' that you fear.

[jameseb]

Very nice work here. :)

[TheDag]

Currently, there is no such appeal system... and it doesn't seem to be high priority to get one in place and working. Some staff are working on it... but it's very slow going.
So could you perhaps explain to me what the announcement saying the appeals section is now open was all about if there is no appeals? :confused:

[TheDag]

It's no joke and very often staff are between a rock and a hard place where the miscreant is intransigent and the members are crying 'foul' because no action seems to be forthcoming. Hands tied and feet shackled are no way to mod a forum - or perhaps y'all haven't been in that unhappy place.
I guess I haven't been in that place but of course I'm a member of a forum that has not had a single post reported. (one of the advantages of the report process being out in the open!).

I see no need for this in the congregational forum I'm in so I'm sure we won't vote for it however there does eem to be some people antagonising each other rather than "walking away" in some forums so I can understand why they would want this. I agree that the fact that it takes a long time to go through the entire process is good and makes it difficult to abuse.

[MariaRegina]

I guess I haven't been in that place but of course I'm a member of a forum that has not had a single post reported. (one of the advantages of the report process being out in the open!).

I see no need for this in the congregational forum I'm in so I'm sure we won't vote for it however there does eem to be some people antagonising each other rather than "walking away" in some forums so I can understand why they would want this. I agree that the fact that it takes a long time to go through the entire process is good and makes it difficult to abuse.

What model forum do you belong to?

Maybe we can all join yours? :D

[Tishri1]

appeals are open meaning the wiki is in place and a snapshot has been taken:wave:

[Tishri1]

added to the wiki
what happens when someone violates the FSB
their ban becomes a normal ban for the same length of time the FSB was:wave:

[JesusFreak78]

What do you think?

I like it. :)

[WarriorAngel]

FSB's used to be a last resort...

So the forum gets rid of 'warnings' and goes straight for the jugular now. ;)

Sorry, I like fsb's but only in the context of a last resort in protocol.

I am not enamored that it is now so immediate.

The old system was much better.

Best Wishes on this. :groupray:

[woobadooba]

I think your FSB system is too harsh. For one that is more forgiving, and reasonable, check out the recent SDA wiki entry for FSBs

See post #590 here: http://foru.ms/t5739473&page=59&nw_show=comments

By the way, as each forum makes up their own rules, it would not be proper for you to apply the ban to CF in general. For, some rules that would be violated in a congregational forum would not even be an issue elsewhere on CF.

For those that don't want to click on the link, here is what it looks like:

6. Warnings & FSBs (Forum Specific Bans) for Both Main SDA Forum & Sub-forums

6.1 There will be zero tolerance for personal flames.

6.2 Upon a rule violation, whether intentional or not, a warning will be given by one of the moderators. If this violation is then deemed intentional, it will be recorded towards an FSB.

6.3 Duplicate registrations under the same or different usernames, as a result of an FSB, will not be tolerated and upon discovery by a moderator will quickly receive a permanent FSB under all registrations.

6.4 Forum Specific Bans will be handled in accordance to the following standards:

For every 3 warnings a person gets, an FSB infraction will be recorded.

1) After two infractions, violators will receive a three day FSB.
2) After three infractions, violators will receive a one week FSB.
3) After five infractions, violators will receive a one month FSB.
4) After ten infractions, violators will receive a one year FSB.
5.) Those who are identified as trolls will be banned permanently from the SDA forum
Warnings/infractions are cumulative. In other words, if you end up getting an FSB, you don't start all over again from a clean slate when your FSB comes to a close. Warnings/infractions will be added to those that you had prior to the FSB.

Every three months rule violators will be assessed on their behavior. For every month that they did not violate any rules prior to this, they will lose 2 infractions (if applicable).

6.5 For blatant violations of profanity, or graphic descriptions of a sexual act, more severe measures will be implemented. There will be a 30 day FSB for the first offense, 90 days for the second, and a permanent ban for the third offense.

'Blatant violations of profanity' is to be understood within the context of a 'flame'. For example, telling someone to 'Frack off' would constitute such a violation.

[Tishri1]

FSB's used to be a last resort...

So the forum gets rid of 'warnings' and goes straight for the jugular now. ;)

Sorry, I like fsb's but only in the context of a last resort in protocol.

I am not enamored that it is now so immediate.

The old system was much better.

Best Wishes on this. :groupray::scratch:maybe your read it to fast this is for the serial rules violator not the average poster and look at post #2 in this discussion ok:thumbsup: It is for last the resort, it outlines last resorts. and it protects even while being a last resort as well:thumbsup:

[woobadooba]

:scratch:maybe your read it to fast this is for the serial rules violator not the average poster and look at post #2 in this discussion ok:thumbsup: It is for last the resort, it outlines last resorts. and it protects even while being a last resort as well:thumbsup:

But then you still have a serious problem to deal with. If each forum makes up its own rules, and those rules decide the fate of such posters, what may be a rule violation in one forum may not even be an issue elsewhere.

Now do you think it would really be fair to ban someone from the entire website under such a system as yours?

Also, shouldn't each forum decide how they want to go about enforcing an FSB system? If we are to make up our own rules, it follows that we should likewise have our own warning system, correct?

[Tishri1]

this isnt being processed to ban from the entire site but to keep someone from that fate, and also read the part in red it says that a forum like yours doesnt have to use this .....may be the title is throwing you off and maybe you think this is an area ban, its not its only for serial violators in a single forum with in the Congregational area:wave:

[MariaRegina]

FSB's used to be a last resort...

So the forum gets rid of 'warnings' and goes straight for the jugular now. ;)

Sorry, I like fsb's but only in the context of a last resort in protocol.

I am not enamored that it is now so immediate.

The old system was much better.

Best Wishes on this. :groupray:

I agree with you.

At least in the old system, a person knew how many warnings and infractions they had.

But with this new system, especially in TAW, only one mod needs to be the judge, jury and executioner and then you are toast with no time allowed for you to participate in the report and no chance for a reconciliation. And then there is almost no chance in TAW to get the report reopened, and even if it is, it is ignored by the mods. And the report becomes a yo-yo never closed, just bumped periodically.

Don't believe me ... just check the TAW report threads.

As it stands now, I could probably have a violation tomorrow and then be faced with an FSB within minutes.

Currently this system is worse than the old except for the fact that the reports are now public.

Sorry, I do not like this current proposal at all, not with all the flaming that is going on by mods and members alike.

It is really anarchy.

I am very disgusted with this whole set-up. I have been PMed by Sups and Mods asking if I would return to staff, but I do not have the time to be involved in petty squabbles with ambiguous rules where people make mountains out of mole hills and where people are so quick to judge.

:sigh::sigh::sigh::sigh::sigh::sigh::sigh::sigh::sigh::sigh::sigh::sigh::sigh::sigh::sigh::sigh::sigh::sigh::sigh::sigh::sigh::sigh::sigh::sigh::sigh:

[Tishri1]

maybe you didnt read it all either...hmmm I was asked by a few to only make the steps themselves big so it doesnt get jumbled but let me change that so the whole wiki is easier to read please read ALL of it...it is for serial violators who have many reports and violations already not for the average member let me word it better for you ok:wave:

[MariaRegina]

Thanks,

With all the ambiguously worded wikis and with mods and members easily misinterpreting them, it does cause confusion.

Even the old CF had chronic problems. Yes, we are dealing with our fallen human natures. :(

Thanks :hug: & :groupray:

[flaglady]

FSB's used to be a last resort...

So the forum gets rid of 'warnings' and goes straight for the jugular now. ;)

Sorry, I like fsb's but only in the context of a last resort in protocol.

I am not enamored that it is now so immediate.

The old system was much better.

Best Wishes on this. :groupray:


WA - This IS a last resort - read it again. It takes ages and lots of incidents and lots of debate to get there. straight for the juglar - hm - a capilliary at a time? LOL!!!



I think your FSB system is too harsh. For one that is more forgiving, and reasonable, check out the recent SDA wiki entry for FSBs

See post #590 here: http://foru.ms/t5739473&page=59&nw_show=comments

By the way, as each forum makes up their own rules, it would not be proper for you to apply the ban to CF in general. For, some rules that would be violated in a congregational forum would not even be an issue elsewhere on CF.

For those that don't want to click on the link, here is what it looks like:

6. Warnings & FSBs (Forum Specific Bans) for Both Main SDA Forum & Sub-forums

6.1 There will be zero tolerance for personal flames.

6.2 Upon a rule violation, whether intentional or not, a warning will be given by one of the moderators. If this violation is then deemed intentional, it will be recorded towards an FSB.

6.3 Duplicate registrations under the same or different usernames, as a result of an FSB, will not be tolerated and upon discovery by a moderator will quickly receive a permanent FSB under all registrations.

6.4 Forum Specific Bans will be handled in accordance to the following standards:

For every 3 warnings a person gets, an FSB infraction will be recorded.

1) After two infractions, violators will receive a three day FSB.
2) After three infractions, violators will receive a one week FSB.
3) After five infractions, violators will receive a one month FSB.
4) After ten infractions, violators will receive a one year FSB.
5.) Those who are identified as trolls will be banned permanently from the SDA forum
Warnings/infractions are cumulative. In other words, if you end up getting an FSB, you don't start all over again from a clean slate when your FSB comes to a close. Warnings/infractions will be added to those that you had prior to the FSB.

Every three months rule violators will be assessed on their behavior. For every month that they did not violate any rules prior to this, they will lose 2 infractions (if applicable).

6.5 For blatant violations of profanity, or graphic descriptions of a sexual act, more severe measures will be implemented. There will be a 30 day FSB for the first offense, 90 days for the second, and a permanent ban for the third offense.

'Blatant violations of profanity' is to be understood within the context of a 'flame'. For example, telling someone to 'Frack off' would constitute such a violation.

Since we don't have an infraction system any more how are they going to apply them? Anyway, ours is just as long winded.

[TheDag]

nm

[Tishri1]

WA - This IS a last resort - read it again. It takes ages and lots of incidents and lots of debate to get there. straight for the juglar - hm - a capilliary at a time? LOL!!!





Since we don't have an infraction system any more how are they going to apply them? Anyway, ours is just as long winded.^_^^_^^_^Jo your quick wit is sooooo precious....I need to start wearing depends when I read your posts:P^_^^_^^_^^_^^_^^_^^_^