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

[DaSeminarian]

Looks fine to me. Looks more like what used to be here before 777.

[Jim47]

Looks good to me. I just hope it doesn't cause confusion if some forums choose not to use it, I would prefer all ET forums be the same.

[Luther073082]

Not sure how its different from current policy. But I don't keep up on that stuff, I just try to follow the rules.

So I'm probably just going to abstain.

[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

[LilLamb219]

Do I vote yes? I mean, I like it for certain forums because it is greatly needed, but I know for TCL that it is not what I would want here. So, do I vote yes?

[DaRev]

I know for TCL that it is not what I would want here.

Why not?

[LilLamb219]

Why not?

Mainly because of this...even though it's not a hard fast rule but a recommendation and a caution, it's still very strict for our forum:

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.

[LilLamb219]

I guess I meant to say that I'm more lenient and would rather wait to suggest that the person might receive a fsb after a few warning types of PM's, not on the first strike.

[Tishri1]

this is for those who are serial violators like TG read post #2 in the discussion and you will see what I mean...If it has already been determined that this person needs to go under this protocol (usually after several reports and violations already, then you begin this proceedure

maybe I should add these words in as well to make it clearer:wave:

[Jim47]

Do I vote yes? I mean, I like it for certain forums because it is greatly needed, but I know for TCL that it is not what I would want here. So, do I vote yes?



I think we just need a clause that this is up to staff discretion and not a mandate. Would that cover your concern?

[LilLamb219]

I think we just need a clause that this is up to staff discretion and not a mandate. Would that cover your concern?

Yep :thumbsup:

[Jim47]

Yep :thumbsup:


By all means then gether done :P