Should Bushie be banned?

[Torie]

You guys apparently don't understand why posters are banned, and why they are not, and the process that leads to one result or the other.

[Torie]

You guys apparently don't understand why posters are banned, and why they are not, and the process that leads to one result or the other.

we'd love to read a detailed explanation of the process, from start to finish.  that would dissuade me of the notion that the above is true because the Moderators want it that way.

that is, if there is a Process, it is kept secret; or, even better, there really isn't any Process at all, or at least, the Process is so hopelessly contradictory that the Mods can more or less ban whomever they like.

as for the final hammer: Nym/Leip have proven to be nothing but rubber stamps.

I believe I have outlined the process before, as have others, including Morden. It's no secret. Posters hit the Cave radar screen, after they rack up a bunch of infraction points, or do something egregious, or have a pattern of egregious behavior (at least as viewed by some), or are believed to be a sock. Spammers generally get bounced without further ado.

Then there is a discussion of the subject poster in the dock by those Mods who choose to participate in a thread, discussing the merits, and in the case of some of us, what the precedents are, so we have some consistency in our actions. Sometimes there is a discussion about whether the infraction points have been handed out in an even handed way. Death points are certainly not alone determinative, but rather a mechanism to precipitate consideration of how to handle the infractor. Sometimes a formal poll is taken.

At some point in this process, at a time of his choosing, Nym makes a decision as to what to do, really acting in the role of a judge in a bench trial. In my experience, he never bans, absent a substantial consensus of the Mods to go in that direction, although it need not necessarily be unanimous, but sometimes the dissent of one Mod is enough to slow the wielding of the ax. Typically, in the more difficult cases, a formal warning is given before a ban, particularly a perma-ban, but not necessarily always, and both Nym and DAVE have expressed the desire to typically give a warning first in such instances, but it is not a hard and fast rule. Opebo's demise was mostly the handiwork of DAVE, and the perception that he was threatening his business model and revenue stream which made the decision unanimous, with me being absent. That was an unusual case.

It's really that simple. Oh one other thing. Since I have been in the Cave, no Mod has lied to the Forum about what goes on in there. You may choose to believe that or not. That part I can't control. But I like to think I have some reputation for honesty around here. Thanks.

[Torie]

How do we know if we are being "investigated" by mods? I racked up some points at one time (thankfully I've been doing better).

You don't, unless some Mod privately tips you off, or are given a formal warning. You are aware of course of infraction points given. It is hard for me to imagine a poster around here not being aware that they are skating on thin ice however.

Oh, at the moment, things are quite calm in the Cave. There is a discussion of course about what to do with the Update, but absolutely no discussion of banning Bushie. That would be wholly inappropriate. You need to have a substantial history of violating the terms of use, or do something outrageous. Bushie does not fit into that category.

[Torie]

If you don't mind saying, if you had to take a guess, what would say a mod vote on the question of a total Update ban would look like?

No, that would not be appropriate. There are varying shades of grey about it, as it were. Badger has publicly stated however that the Update should be left alone, and I over the course of time have expressed hostility to it. I will leave it at that.

[Torie]

You may choose to believe that or not. That part I can't control. But I like to think I have some reputation for honesty around here. Thanks.

you do.  how would you like to start a discussion with your fellow Moderators about declassifying "Mod Cave" discussions that are older than, say, 12 months?  18 months?

I don't think that would be a popular idea. It would have a chilling effect on candid exchanges, and would consume time to do it. The process is not like a public trial, but more like the judicial conference that appellate judges and the Supreme Court have, that nobody attends but themselves. It certainly should not be done retroactively, since the Mods that participated had an expectation of confidentiality as to what they said.