Poll : CA(Congregational Area)Single Forum Ban Protocol

[Tishri1]

I am posting a poll in each forum introducing our CA(Congregational Area)Single Forum Ban Protocol

It is a protocol that each individual forum can use in cases where FSBs(Forum Specific Bans) are needed....

It is not an Area or Site wide Ban protocol just a single congregation's protocol should they choose to use it....

Here is the link to the wiki (http://foru.ms/t5965634-wiki-et-ban-protocol.html#post38013000)and the link to the discussion that follows (http://foru.ms/t5965634&nw_show=comments) please look it over and vote yes I like it or no I dont like it, simple and sweet.....

Your forum can choose to use it or not use it later, right now we just want to know if you like the concept and the wording:thumbsup:

Thanks Everyone for your input,

Love , Tish:hug:

PS PLEASE USE THE WIKI DISCUSSION THREAD FOR YOUR COMMENTS THIS THREAD WILL REMAIN CLOSED TO COMMENTS OK

[GreenMunchkin]

Yah, I'd rather we discuss this here, given in our case it would refer to CC, specifically. What other forums do is up to them...

I hate the idea of our issuing anyone with an FSB, ever.

Anyone *that* troublesome will be someone who possibly needs the most help. And any posts they make can just be moved to our sub-forum. That's such a luxury that we have and we don't make nearly enough of it yet. If someone is being drawn here enough for them to warrant receiving an FSB, they're being drawn here for a reason, and that's precisely the sort of person we should be witnessing to. In our sub-forum, if not in the main forum.

Dunno. FSBs seem sort of mean :(

[~*Lady Trekki*~]

Yah, I'd rather we discuss this here, given in our case it would refer to CC, specifically. What other forums do is up to them...

I hate the idea of our issuing anyone with an FSB, ever.

Anyone *that* troublesome will be someone who possibly needs the most help. And any posts they make can just be moved to our sub-forum. That's such a luxury that we have and we don't make nearly enough of it yet. If someone is being drawn here enough for them to warrant receiving an FSB, they're being drawn here for a reason, and that's precisely the sort of person we should be witnessing to. In our sub-forum, if not in the main forum.

Dunno. FSBs seem sort of mean :(
Yes and no. I think it should be reserved as a last resort. :)

[GreenMunchkin]

Yes and no. I think it should be reserved as a last resort. :)You're probably right, mama :( :hug:

It just feels reeeeeally harsh... One of the other mods would have to issue it, for sure :(

[~*Lady Trekki*~]

You're probably right, mama :( :hug:

It just feels reeeeeally harsh... One of the other mods would have to issue it, for sure :(
Your so sweet GM...:hug: Love your heart!

[GreenMunchkin]

Your so sweet GM...:hug: Love your heart!And yours, my love :hug:

Heyyy, what if we altered it? We could give them a much longer grace period than the wiki there mandates? And we could incorporate our debate sub-forum... like, I wonder if it's possible for someone to receive an FSB for the main forum, but not the sub-forum... :scratch:

Humm.

[Hentenza]

Hey guys,

I wholeheartly agree that a FSB should be a last resort action, however, I do see the need to have it in the books. I have seen instances of people being specially disruptive and deceitful that have warranted this action. Heck, we even had a poster in theology that posed as a Catholic but turned out to be a Muslim attempting to spread their brand of theology and was very disruptive.

The FSB system as brought forward in the above mentioned wiki does provide a series of "disciplinary action" steps designed to give the person a chance to change their posting style and/or attitude. The system even calls for pastoral counseling for the more egregious violations.

It sure would be frustrating to all if we didn't have this or a similar system in place and we had an unusually disruptive member that would tie our hands as far as enforcing the forum rules.

God Bless

[~*Lady Trekki*~]

And yours, my love :hug:

Heyyy, what if we altered it? We could give them a much longer grace period than the wiki there mandates? And we could incorporate our debate sub-forum... like, I wonder if it's possible for someone to receive an FSB for the main forum, but not the sub-forum... :scratch:

Humm.
Hummm...pretty sure if they receive a forum FSB it would include our sub-forum. :)

[GreenMunchkin]

It's probably something we need to write into our wiki, then... :( But can we wait a bit? I think most people are all wiki'd-out for the time being and *so* much stuff is up in the air at the moment. Big sigh :(

[~*Lady Trekki*~]

It's probably something we need to write into our wiki, then... :( But can we wait a bit? I think most people are all wiki'd-out for the time being and *so* much stuff is up in the air at the moment. Big sigh :(

I know I am. :|

[Lisa0315]

Well, the good news is that it is already written. So, no one would have to get wikied out. I voted, "Yes".

I do have one question. How do we keep up with the number of violations, and what do we do if five violations occur in one day within the same thread. You know that happens when things get heated.

Lisa

[GreenMunchkin]

:(

Given tonight's events and what I reckon is coming, we probably need to ratify some sort of FSB system sooner rather than later.

[Lisa0315]

:(

Given tonight's events and what I reckon is coming, we probably need to ratify some sort of FSB system sooner rather than later.

Can we talk?

Lisa

[~*Lady Trekki*~]

:(

Given tonight's events and what I reckon is coming, we probably need to ratify some sort of FSB system sooner rather than later.
What's up GM? Did I miss something?

[GreenMunchkin]

You both saw it?

So, it's calming down, praise God, but am seeing why it may eventually be a necessary evil at some point.

:( Still warrants a sad face, though.

[JimfromOhio]

I don't like it but there are times that we need this.

[~*Lady Trekki*~]

You both saw it?

So, it's calming down, praise God, but am seeing why it may eventually be a necessary evil at some point.

:( Still warrants a sad face, though.
Absolutely. :(

[GreenMunchkin]

Absolutely. :(It was her *threat* to join... it really was a threat. Did you see it? Amazing. And we'll see what happens with WWC. If he's here to get rowdy with NG, it'll kick off :(

[~*Lady Trekki*~]

It was her *threat* to join... it really was a threat. Did you see it? Amazing. And we'll see what happens with WWC. If he's here to get rowdy with NG, it'll kick off :(
Yep, I saw that. I suppose this isn't the place to discuss it though.

It does prove the point that we need something like this in place however.

[GreenMunchkin]

Yep, I saw that. I suppose this isn't the place to discuss it though.

It does prove the point that we need something like this in place however.True.

But I still think we should re-word it to include our debate sub-forum. That should be possible no?

[~*Lady Trekki*~]

True.

But I still think we should re-word it to include our debate sub-forum. That should be possible no?
Oh yes, it certainly would. And I think it would be a good idea...especially there. :doh:

[Letalis]

Bump for voters.

[GreenMunchkin]

Letalis is finding out what can be done about non-members getting in the middle of our reports, but someone suggested Rochir being given an FSB, and I think we need to start discussing it.

[Criada]

Letalis is finding out what can be done about non-members getting in the middle of our reports, but someone suggested Rochir being given an FSB, and I think we need to start discussing it.
Not been around much, so I may have missed something here, but, Why??
(PM me if this is going to set off a long discussion!)

[Tishri1]

And yours, my love :hug:

Heyyy, what if we altered it? We could give them a much longer grace period than the wiki there mandates? And we could incorporate our debate sub-forum... like, I wonder if it's possible for someone to receive an FSB for the main forum, but not the sub-forum... :scratch:

Humm.you can but then you need to get your members vote and you need to wiki and sticki it in your forum

BTW this is designed to be used by single forums like yours not by the whole congregational area:wave:

Well, the good news is that it is already written. So, no one would have to get wikied out. I voted, "Yes".

I do have one question. How do we keep up with the number of violations, and what do we do if five violations occur in one day within the same thread. You know that happens when things get heated.

Lisawe have a ban log in ET HQ that lists who gets a ban and for how long

and usually it takes up to 2 months worth of small FSBs to get all the way to a full year long ban its pretty descent I must say;)

[Tishri1]

Congregational Area 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"

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 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

snapshot taken 8/27/07

[Debi1967]

Yes I see it as a necessary evil that we needs to have as a last resort.

[ContentInHim]

I think events of this past week prove the need for FSB! :(

[Sothron]

I completely agree with this. If someone is being disruptive on a board simply out of spite or because they disagree with the politics or tenets of that board then they need to be forcibly removed.

[Criada]

I completely agree with this. If someone is being disruptive on a board simply out of spite or because they disagree with the politics or tenets of that board then they need to be forcibly removed.
:sigh:
I agree - but how do you judge motivation?
Am actually saddened by the fact that I agree...

[Sothron]

:sigh:
I agree - but how do you judge motivation?
Am actually saddened by the fact that I agree...

Their fruit, in this case their posting history, will show if they actually want to fellowship or simply want to cause dissension or be constantly negative or hurtful to the members here. That kind of poster IMO has lost the privilege of posting at least in this forum.