Amcan Posted March 7, 2015 Share Posted March 7, 2015 Hello everyone,The admod team has reviewed the disciplinary guidelines involved between member suspensions and bans. It was felt that the current system was confusing and the team discussed a few options for simplifying the process. The conclusion to this discussion has been complete removal of the 6 month suspension option, as the option failed to hold up under review--with redundancy and complications of appeals being cited as factors hindering the speed and clarity of long-term disciplinary process.It is for these reasons that the previous protocol will be re-instated, wherein any member accruing 3 active warnings in the allotted time period will be banned from the site. Aside from the removal of suspensions, current protocol will remain the same. Members will continue to be allowed to submit an appeal for their bans. An appeal can only be submitted after 6 months have passed from the date of the ban.Any members that are currently in their 6 month probation period will not be affected by this change.In summary: 3 active warnings accrued within an applicable amount of time will lead to a full site ban.Bans can be appealed after 6 months. While the appeals process will remain intact, there is no guarantee that an appeal will be successful.To learn more about the Terms of Service, or the disciplinary process and policies, click here. Thank you.On behalf of the Admod Team, Amcan Administrator Link to post Share on other sites
Robin L Posted March 8, 2015 Share Posted March 8, 2015 Here is more information on the disciplinary system. Link to post Share on other sites
ithaca Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 I have a few questions and comments, as the matter seems still unclear: 1- In the link above (and where Amcan's post has also been added), it still explains that when a member comes back after a third warning, they will be on probation with 2 active warns and blahblahblah. Is that still the case? Or would an unbanned member have a clean slate? The announcement doesn't explain it, and it does give the feeling that Admods have a prejudice/bias that appeals will be unsuccessful (to the point of not explaining what happens IF someone is unbanned, if you see what I mean). 2- Every official warning (prior to the third, it seems) can be appealed right after being received, as the member may bring proof that proves them innocent or softens the case from warn to nudge. Is this update saying that the third warning does NOT give this option to members, and they'd have to wait 6 months even if they have proof they're innocent? If so, why? Isn't the third warning still as likely to be proved unfair by a member, or too harsh if given proof? If I am sent a third warning and I have proof I am innocent, why can't I send it before 6 months, and have to suffer an unjust ban for such a long time? 3- Following from the second question, if an appeal cannot be sent before 6 months from receiving a third warn, this isn't at all what the procedure used to be before. Therefore, the announcement is not honest. 4- Following again from the second question, I remember that one of the reasons we introduced the 6 months suspension was because sometimes Admods found it a bit hard to permanently ban a regular member, and we found we were being more lenient and questioning our vote more than any first or second warning. This seemed to make it feel like the third warning weighed more in a ban than the other two, while a member is banned for breaking the rules three times, not just the third. (I'm not objecting to the removal of the suspension if the review found it not effective, just to be clear.) But by adding that members cannot appeal before 6 months (unlike other warns), this seems to aggravate that feeling of "more important than other warnings" that we have discussed several times. So why this difference? And how would it affect votings? Link to post Share on other sites
Robin L Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 1. Two warning points 2. Can be immediately appealed Link to post Share on other sites
marki Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 Wait up. How exactly do you expect someone to appeal a ban? When you are banned you can't make any contact with anyone on this site so it is impossible to make an appeal. And what on earth is the point of even having an appeal when everyone knows they never are overturned? What constitutes an allotted time period? That is some seriously vague terminology. Link to post Share on other sites
Lia Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 Wait up. How exactly do you expect someone to appeal a ban? When you are banned you can't make any contact with anyone on this site so it is impossible to make an appeal. And what on earth is the point of even having an appeal when everyone knows they never are overturned? What constitutes an allotted time period? That is some seriously vague terminology. Banned members can email the admods: admods@asexuality.org in order to communicate an appeal for a 3rd warn/ban. Link to post Share on other sites
marki Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 Wow...that would be nice to include in the email when you ban someone.....maybe you can make sure to do that. Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 Wow...that would be nice to include in the email when you ban someone.....maybe you can make sure to do that. I think we do that already Link to post Share on other sites
marki Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 No you don't....you send a link to this site that can't be accessed. And what is the alloted time frame? I've had warnings that were for posts that were made weeks before receiving them, so what's to say someone can't get a warning, then another, and then some random person goes through and finds something they said 3 months ago, get uppity, and have them banned for that? Is there a time frame from when the post was made to when it is no longer able to receive punishment? Because if that isn't something that has been discussed it needs to be ( as is a whole rewording of the ToS). Thanks everyone for the great job I love you all! Link to post Share on other sites
AshenPhoenix Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 For the record, you can still access AVEN for the most part when you're banned, you just can't log into your account and post. I mean, think about before YOU had your account, you were still able to look at all the threads. (at least the ones that were available to people without accounts) Also the email procedure has always been the case for banned members, even in the past IIRC. Banned members would submit their appeal via email to the admods. That is nothing new Link to post Share on other sites
marki Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 I never looked at these forums before I had an account....just the website. Link to post Share on other sites
ithaca Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 No you don't....you send a link to this site that can't be accessed. And what is the alloted time frame? I've had warnings that were for posts that were made weeks before receiving them, so what's to say someone can't get a warning, then another, and then some random person goes through and finds something they said 3 months ago, get uppity, and have them banned for that? Is there a time frame from when the post was made to when it is no longer able to receive punishment? Because if that isn't something that has been discussed it needs to be ( as is a whole rewording of the ToS). Thanks everyone for the great job I love you all! I can't find it in the public forums so I'd better not give any specifics before someone comes with the idea that sharing a rule is "breaching". But I can assure you from my experience that even in the case someone reported something really old (as in your example), it would be dismissed unless it's a serious case of safety (say stalking, doxxing, etc), therefore it wouldn't generate a discussion between Admods at all. The timeframe is reasonable, and I think the reason it wasn't posted was not to discourage people who actually go through safety issues from reporting, but then I may be wrong and an Admod may appear and share how long you can wait at best to report something. Link to post Share on other sites
Robin L Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 There is definitely a statute of limitation. Again, I'm not sue if I'm allowed to say that, but be assured that there definitely is one, and the length isn't 100000 years Link to post Share on other sites
ithaca Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 I've always thought that Admods should clarify the breach/no breach thing for themselves, and this is a clear example of it. It is really awkward that a group of people administrating an online forum doesn't know if they can say what's the statue of limitation on reports... Link to post Share on other sites
marki Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 So if I was given a warn for a 2 week old post that is okay? Because if it isn't I want that stricken from my account. Thanks! You are all my favorites! Link to post Share on other sites
Robin L Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 So if I was given a warn for a 2 week old post that is okay? Because if it isn't I want that stricken from my account. Thanks! You are all my favorites! Yes, that was ok. If it wasn't, we wouldn't have warned you in the first place. Link to post Share on other sites
marki Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 Whatever you warn people for absolutely nothing. And with these new changes you are now going to be able to punish people even easier than ever before with even less need for any real reason or justification. Link to post Share on other sites
binary suns Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 I'm opposed to permanent bans I know I'm supposed to trust that there is a lengthly and painful process to ensure that people banned are only people who "deserve" to be banned... but idk I find it hard to trust these sorts of things... it's painful enough to deal with institutional policies that jump on me, I hate to think that there's a chance I'll make too many mistakes and be rejected from somewhere that I go that I want to help me feel safe. Link to post Share on other sites
AshenPhoenix Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 Whatever you warn people for absolutely nothing. And with these new changes you are now going to be able to punish people even easier than ever before with even less need for any real reason or justification. Tbh AVEN is about 500 times more lenient than absolutely any other site I've been on, from video game forums to LGBT websites. Even before I was a mod I thought that. I've seen peoples threads removed for asking for help because they weren't in the right forum, not moved, removed. I've seen people warned for talking about how bad circumcision is in hindsight. No one was insulting, everyone was politely discussing. Lots of stuff I have personally seen warned wouldn't get a second glance here. Not saying that to you in particular, but I think it oughta be known things really aren't that bad here, even by forums standards it's pretty lenient, but still well oiled. Link to post Share on other sites
Member4445 Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 Actually they do include their email in a ban...you can also just reply to the email they send you. Link to post Share on other sites
binary suns Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 There's a difference between an assumption and an explanation, Ciri. Many emails people get that are similar to AVEN emails are do-not-reply... Link to post Share on other sites
Member4445 Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 *shrugs* The many many times I've had to email, the address is either included or you can reply to it. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.