Ambiguous reasons given for banning members.

[Hills Cloud]

I was reading over the banned thread and many of the reasons given for kicking people out of the forum make no sense, are not in the rules, seem whimsical or indeed made up. Has anyone else noticed this or is it against policy to raise the matter? I've read the rules but got a little bleary eyed toward the end. Already have an infraction for posting in CT without staying on astronomy topics which is fair enough. Just uncertain the moderators are playing fair. No need for any moderators to join in this discussion as it concerns their actions and I've seen how defensive they get when their actions are questioned. This is a question for members only please. The opinions of moderators will ofcourse be biased and of no consequence therefore.

[LotusExcelle]

Examples?

[Hills Cloud]

Examples?

So you haven't noticed. I'm not going to point out examples. Please reread the question.

[slang]

So you haven't noticed. I'm not going to point out examples. Please reread the question.

So we'll have to guess what you mean... Well, I fully agree. Almost every single one of these ban-reasons must have been invented on the spot.

[Gillianren]

No, it doesn't work that way. I read the question. You have made a claim. I disagree with your claim and would like you to point out specific examples so they can be discussed.

[Hills Cloud]

So we'll have to guess what you mean...

I'll reiterate the question.

Has anyone else noticed this or is it against policy to raise the matter?

If you haven't noticed it then thats fine. If you have noticed it then thats fine. Its a yes or no question.

No, it doesn't work that way.

Please point to the rule indicating such.

I read the question. You have made a claim.

Observation. It is ofcourse challengable just like any other observation.

I disagree with your claim

Then you have answered my question. Thank you for participating.

[LotusExcelle]

I think you are either ignoring or misunderstanding our questions to you: what do *you* consider "whimsical" or "made-up" reasons?

[Halcyon Dayz]

No, it doesn't work that way.

Please point to the rule indicating such.

It's called burden of proof.

What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. — Christopher Hitchens

[tusenfem]

Let's make that an official request.
Hills Cloud if you have a complaint then you need to support this. There is no guessing game here, where other BAUTians come up with "is this the infraction?" and "or is this the one?"
Like said by others in this thread, it's the burden of proof, some call it "put up or shut up."

[HenrikOlsen]

I was reading over the banned thread and many of the reasons given for kicking people out of the forum make no sense, are not in the rules, seem whimsical or indeed made up. Has anyone else noticed this or is it against policy to raise the matter?

It's entirely possible that cases that doesn't make sense to you are due to your misunderstanding of the rules and if you don't say what those this misunderstanding can't be resolved. Ditto for "not in the rules", "whimsical" and "made up".
So tell us what you think doesn't make sense so we can help you make sense of it and better understand the rules.

[Hills Cloud]

I think you are either ignoring or misunderstanding our questions to you: what do *you* consider "whimsical" or "made-up" reasons?

Ignoring.

It's called burden of proof.

Under which section of the rules?

I asked:

Has anyone else noticed this... ?

If I point out examples then the question becomes pointless.

Hills Cloud if you have a complaint then you need to support this.

I don't have a complaint. It was a question. Telling a member to shut up is a breach of the number one rule. I requested that moderators refrain from participating because you are biased and likely to act defensively. You have ignored my request. I will return the favour by ignoring yours.

It's entirely possible that cases that doesn't make sense to you are due to your misunderstanding of the rules and if you don't say what those this misunderstanding can't be resolved. Ditto for "not in the rules", "whimsical" and "made up".

Anything is possible within the boundaries of the physical laws that dictate the events inside this multiverse.

So tell us what you think doesn't make sense so we can help you make sense of it and better understand the rules.

Your animosity towards a simple question. I asked because you are correct, I could be wrong. I wanted to know if anyone else had seen the same thing I had. Obviously nobody has or they are afraid to speak up.

[HenrikOlsen]

So you think it's acceptable to attack people and then tell them not to post in response, interesting.

It's called burden of proof.
What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. — Christopher Hitchens

Under which section of the rules?

You missed that the Hitchens quote was part of the statement. It's not part of the rules of the forum because it's an elementary part of making an argument. The rules don't state that 2+2=4 either, though you're expected to know that too.

BTW, one of the misunderstandings I mentioned could be a failure to note by the red text that Tusenfem didn't post as a participant, but as a moderator, it's a very bad idea to ignore moderators when they post as moderators. If you haven't noticed this distinction it makes sense that some suspensions seem strange. Note that this comment is not an attempt at moderating but rather to explain some of the possible misunderstandings that caused the questions in the OP.

[Hills Cloud]

You missed that the Hitchens quote was part of the statement.

Irrelevant to the question.

It's not part of the rules of the forum because it's an elementary part of making an argument.

I'm not making an argument.

The rules don't state that 2+2=4 either, though you're expected to know that.

It can also make 22.

BTW, one of the misunderstandings I mentioned could be a failure to note by the red text that Tusenfem didn't post as a participant, but as a moderator, it's a very bad idea to ignore moderators when they post as moderators.

If I am banned for raising this topic then you will have an example.

If you haven't noticed this distinction it makes sense that some suspensions seem strange.

So you have noticed it too. Thank you for participating.

[Strange]

Has anyone else noticed this or is it against policy to raise the matter?

I think it is bit bizarre to want to limit discussion to a yes/no answer to this literal question, but: no.

Although you don't want it, I will add that some of the early bans are somewhat obscure. There are people who have been banned in the distant past but when I read typical posts from them, I can't see anything particularly evil. But, presumably, at some point they crossed the line. I notice that some of them have been banned on several other forums as well - read into that what you will.

More recent bans have all been entirely reasonable (even when I was sorry to see the person go) and very well documented.

I've seen how defensive they get when their actions are questioned. .... The opinions of moderators will of course be biased and of no consequence therefore.

I also haven't noticed moderators being either defensive or biased. But, of course, they do have a lot more insight into what goes on than you or me: they will have seen all the evidence for banning someone (and discussed it) as well as private messages/reports to the moderators. So not wanting that information seems perverse - like you only want information that supports your own bias?

Anyway, assertions that are made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence: you are wrong

[Strange]

If I am banned for raising this topic then you will have an example.

No one has ever (as far as I know) been banned for discussing moderation policy. It is a (tediously) frequent topic of discussion (mainly by people who have broken the rules and think they should, therefore, be changed).

[HenrikOlsen]

If I am banned for raising this topic then you will have an example.

I really doubt you'll get in any trouble for raising the subject, but the rudeness with which you've argued your case might.

So you have noticed it too. Thank you for participating.

I haven't noticed that as something in any way strange, but rather noted that it may have been a misunderstanding on your part that caused you to characterize it thus.
Don't try to spin my words as support for your accusations, they're not.

[Hills Cloud]

Has anyone else noticed this or is it against policy to raise the matter?

I will add that some of the early bans are somewhat obscure. There are people who have been banned in the distant past but when I read typical posts from them, I can't see anything particularly evil.

You seem to be contradicting yourself. Shall I put you down as a possible maybe?

But, presumably, at some point they crossed the line.

Presuming guilt in the absence of evidence is certainly an ambiguous reason. I'll put you down as a yes then shall I?

I notice that some of them have been banned on several other forums as well - read into that what you will.

That would be presuming guilt based on unrelated matters. Do people get banned at this forum for being banned at other forums? That would certainly be an ambiguous reason.

I also haven't noticed moderators being either defensive or biased.

Read back through a few posts in this thread. Its in red.

But, of course, they do have a lot more insight into what goes on than you or me: they will have seen all the evidence for banning someone (and discussed it) as well as private messages/reports to the moderators.

An assumption. If they haven't shared it then they quite possibly don't have it.

Anyway, assertions that are made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence: you are wrong

Exactly my point. If the moderators can't be bothered sharing their evidence then their claims can also be dismissed.

No one has ever (as far as I know) been banned for discussing moderation policy. It is a (tediously) frequent topic of discussion (mainly by people who have broken the rules and think they should, therefore, be changed).

How would you know? If the moderators aren't sharing all the facts then you don't have a complete picture of what is going on.

[Tobin Dax]

I was reading over the banned thread and many of the reasons given for kicking people out of the forum make no sense, are not in the rules, seem whimsical or indeed made up. Has anyone else noticed this or is it against policy to raise the matter? I've read the rules but got a little bleary eyed toward the end. Already have an infraction for posting in CT without staying on astronomy topics which is fair enough. Just uncertain the moderators are playing fair. No need for any moderators to join in this discussion as it concerns their actions and I've seen how defensive they get when their actions are questioned. This is a question for members only please. The opinions of moderators will ofcourse be biased and of no consequence therefore.

Where did you start reading the banned members thread? This forum has been around for a long time, in a number of forms. The rules and the running of the forum have changed as needed over the years, so early bans in the thread may not have the same context as recent bans.

[Hills Cloud]

I really doubt you'll get in any trouble for raising the subject, but the rudeness with which you've argued your case might.

I take exception to being called rude. I asked if anyone else had noticed ambiguous reasons being given for bans. I have been polite. Some replies have carefully answered in the affirmative. Thats all I have required. Nobody should feel villified by the question. If I was to point out specific examples then I would be naming mods but I have kept the topic generalised. This is not a witch hunt.

[Hills Cloud]

Where did you start reading the banned members thread? This forum has been around for a long time, in a number of forms. The rules and the running of the forum have changed as needed over the years, so early bans in the thread may not have the same context as recent bans.

I'll say this much. I've noticed questionable bans throughout the thread.

[Strange]

You seem to be contradicting yourself. Shall I put you down as a possible maybe?
Presuming guilt in the absence of evidence is certainly an ambiguous reason. I'll put you down as a yes then shall I?

No. You will not put words in my mouth to support your erroneous and unsubstantiated beliefs.

[Hills Cloud]

No. You will not put words in my mouth to support your erroneous and unsubstantiated beliefs.

I copy pasted your responses exactly. Perhaps you should check your text before hitting reply.

[tusenfem]

Hills Cloud, as apparently you will not put any substance to your claims, this discussion is moot.
If at some time you are willing to support your claims, then report this message including the text you wish to post.
Thread closed

[Hills Cloud]

I wanted to ascertain whether I was the only person who had noticed the ambiguous bans at this board. Therefore I couldn't point them out as that would make the question pointless.

Seeing as a moderator has closed the thread on ambiguous bans(big surprise), I'll give two examples. One from the beginning and one from near the end of the banned members thread.

Banning number one. Very first post.

Project Orion.

"projectorion, your post was sarcastic and rude. Of course writing can display an attitude, have a tone. That's why some books can start revolutions.

Think this through: amnesty for banned people was a choice, not a fait accompli. You could have been banned from this forum from the start. The fact that you were not means that I am willing to give some people a chance.

You are abusing this chance. You have been rude, sarcastic, and provocative, and I am not the only one to notice.

So I will make this very clear: clean up the posts and leave the attitude at home."

Sounds like a personal vendetta by BA.



Banning number two.

Universe Today.

Banned for using the name 'Universe Today'.

[HenrikOlsen]

How extremely interesting that you should pick those two specifically, since they're the same person, that was what the latter account was banned for, not for using that name. Opening a new account to get around a ban is an instant ban as it's the person who gets the ban.

There are ample example of reasons for banning that person, you've picked a really bad example if you think that was ambiguous in any way.
Including acts outside this forum such as spamming the Universe Today wiki page with a link which was somewhat similar but led to a site that had nothing to do with Universe Today and wasn't in any way named Universe Today.

[tusenfem]

Seeing as a moderator has closed the thread on ambiguous bans(big surprise), I'll give two examples. One from the beginning and one from near the end of the banned members thread.

Apparently, you cannot read, as I specifically told you that as you were not going to support your claims, there was no use in discussing any further.

Hills Cloud, you were told to report the post if you were going to support your claims, not open a new thread.
This costs you an infraction.

[Daggerstab]

I wanted to ascertain whether I was the only person who had noticed the ambiguous bans at this board. Therefore I couldn't point them out as that would make the question pointless.

Seeing as a moderator has closed the thread on ambiguous bans(big surprise), I'll give two examples. One from the beginning and one from near the end of the banned members thread.

The thread was closed because you refused to provide examples. You could you have reported the last post and indicated that you are willing to provide examples, and the thread would have been reopened.

Banning number one. Very first post.

Project Orion.

(...)

Sounds like a personal vendetta by BA.

That quote is from this thread:
http://www.bautforum.com/showthread....-Project-Orion

It seems that projectorion had had a history on the previous incarnations of the forum. Anyway, that was in 2005. The Bad Astronomer is no longer active on this forum.

Banning number two.

Universe Today.

Banned for using the name 'Universe Today'.

If you haven't noticed, this is the "Bad Astronomy and Universe Today Forum". User names implying affiliation with the owner of a website when there is none are generally forbidden on every sane website.
http://www.bautforum.com/showthread....00#post1917500
There was also apparently other evidence that this is someone who does this regularly.

[Daggerstab]

I need to type faster.

[Strange]

How extremely interesting that you should pick those two specifically, since they're the same person, that was what the latter account was banned for, not for using that name. Opening a new account to get around a ban is an instant ban as it's the person who gets the ban.

There are ample example of reasons for banning that person, you've picked a really bad example if you think that was ambiguous in any way.
Including acts outside this forum such as spamming the Universe Today wiki page with a link which was somewhat similar but led to a site that had nothing to do with Universe Today and wasn't in any way named Universe Today.

If the OP is just complaining about ambiguous wording then I suppose that is not entirely unreasonable - it doesn't explicitly say it was for being a sock puppet but I thought that was pretty obvious. I was scratching my head to work out who it was ... until Project Orion was mentioned.

I assumed the OP was complaining ambiguous reasons for bans. Which is quite a different thing.

[Gillianren]

Project Orion was banned because he was rude. Repeatedly and at length. If I recall, he had also been banned from the old BABB, and possibly the old UT, for being rude repeatedly and at length. He was given amnesty during the board merger, as was everyone who had been banned from either board, and did not change the pattern of behaviour which was responsible for his being banned. If anyone finds that at odds with the rules . . . again, going strictly on memory (it was a long time ago), the only rule we had at the time was "be nice." It was just after the merger, and there was this faint, idealistic hope that people might be able to stick to such a rule.