Mayhaps An Explanation Be In Order?

[Atbone95]

No, it's bullsh#t. The "admins" and "mods" act like, because this is an ONLINE message board, no one knows anyone in real life and they can throw out all the bans they want and say they've spoken to and given justifications to the banned and we know that's bs. Why? Because we talk to them. They are friends. That is what your message board facilitates, and assuming otherwise is an insult to yourselves and the kind of board you're running.

[zoogs]

Okay, everyone. It's been quite the week.

 

Many of you have been a part of this community for some time, and are familiar with how we work. Some maybe more than others

 

At any rate, you'll know -- as has been reiterated many a time, and particularly in the past few days -- what we want and expect out of our members. Particularly with regards to civility towards one another, including towards those with whom you have disagreements. Look, we're not asking everyone to like one another. However, be able to be a member of the same community as those whom you don't like.

 

This comes extremely easily to most people, especially on this community through most of its history, and for that, we are very grateful. Huskerboard has a remarkable history of members who can handle themselves. It's allowed us to share in a very large, very diverse, very wonderful community. And among sports forums? I think that is rare indeed. And that is a credit to everyone here.

 

The moderators and administrators take special care to maintain that. Sometimes we encounter members who have a great deal of difficulty with conforming to these standards. You may have noticed that we give these members an enormous amount of patience. We're not keen on banning anyone, least of all someone who we think has the potential to simply be advised of our simple, civil expectations, and thereafter be a positive member of the community. We believe in giving people opportunity after opportunity, sometimes, to be frank, *quite* far past the point where they should have run out.

 

I'll assure everyone, however, that when we no longer can expect that from a member, that they respect the community in which they are participating and the environment to which they are contributing, that is when a member's status comes into question. Simply put, a user who is not a spammer, who is not breaking rules or actively targeting the board, HAS to cross this line in order to be banned.

 

Will they necessarily agree? Of course not. It is pretty rare for a banned member to see eye to eye with us on why they are banned. In a few cases, banned members are so angry that they'd like to expend every ounce of their remaining effort disparaging us and damaging the community. To those we say: Good luck.

 

I have full confidence in every single member of this team, moderator or admin, when they make a call like this. I know that not one of us enjoys banning people, as we all want this place to be as full of life and cheer as possible. The tough calls, rare as they may be, have to be made, and they are never unilateral, or personally motivated. Whether or not the banning admins choose to release a statement, however, is entirely up to them. It's not and hasn't ever been our policy to go into great detail on individual cases.

 

I'd also like to note that there is zero discomfort with any word or phrase. It is greatly unfortunate that an attempt at making sure people understand how we expect them to accord others respect and courtesy, has been twisted in this way. That's entirely on us. I care greatly about fostering an environment free of discrimination and hatefulness, and I'm well aware of how terms such as "gay" and "retarded" do not belong, even in joking. Particularly coming from our end, they don't reflect the professionalism we expect from ourselves when we enforce our own standards. I'd hope everyone who knows any of us even a little, knows that this is not lip service.

 

That said, what we do aim at is, I hope, extremely clear. We want members to be civil to one another, and to respect this entire community with EVERY interaction they take. Sometimes I wonder why we have the Woodshed. It's a good place for people to vent and use language, but we don't put it there to let people foster and build up hate towards one another, and then routinely spill it out over the rest of the board. This isn't ShaggyBevo, folks. I think we've all had enough of some of the stuff that's been going on.

 

Those of you who have been concerned by the events of this week, I understand. I know some of you will disagree with either the specific actions that have been taken, or our general approach, the latter of which I've outlined in detail and absolutely stand by. I know some strong members of this community are contemplating, or have already decided, to leave because of what they feel is unjust. That's OK. I thank all of you who have chosen to remain civil, polite, and understanding during this entire time. I applaud the tone of this thread and think well of everyone who shows such care about their boardmates and wants to make sure they are treated fairly. You guys demonstrate the strength of this community and represent both yourselves, and all Husker fans extremely well. I hope that all of you will stick around, and I understand if some of you won't.

 

I'm saddened and sorry to see some posters I held in very high esteem choose, over the course of this, become hell bent on signing their own way out of here. Those wishes have, after review, largely been obliged. In a way I understand why they did that, too -- they're passionate, sticking up for their friends, and firmly believe they're fighting a just cause. Whether you agree with the decisions, or not, though, lashing out is not in the right. I'm optimistic that not many more will choose to join them.

 

I hope that was at least half cogent. Personally, after the week I've had here, I've my doubts .

 

Thank you for those of you who have been here, and to those who wish to remain. Here's to a better Huskerboard.

[beanman]

 

I'm saddened and sorry to see some posters I held in very high esteem choose, over the course of this, become hell bent on signing their own way out of here. Those wishes have, after review, largely been obliged. In a way I understand why they did that, too -- they're passionate, sticking up for their friends, and firmly believe they're fighting a just cause. Whether you agree with the decisions, or not, though, lashing out is not in the right. I'm optimistic that not many more will choose to join them.

 

Please provide a specific example in which Chaddy lashed out to deserve a ban. I'll be patiently waiting.

 

I don't buy your explanation. At all.

[beanman]

Taps fingers on table. Checks his watch.

[It'sNotAFakeID]

Zoogs, I appreciate everything the moderators and admins do for this board, I truly do. I think HuskerBoard is one of the more lenient college sports message boards on the Web, and we've seen Polo, SW, and AtB get numerous chances to "right the ship." Whether the ship needed to be righted is a different story entirely. But at the end of the day, I think most of us understood why the aforementioned 3 had their HuskerBoard statuses revoked. I started taking issue with the going ons here when posters like tschu and Chaddy found themselves on the chopping block. Perhaps I'm and we're missing context, but those were two posters who most people thought highly of, as evidenced by both of them being included in the HuskerBoard Starting Lineup.

 

My issue boils down to distributive and procedural justice. Distributive justice refers to the perception of the fairness of the punishment and procedural justice refers to the perception of the fairness of the process of the punishment. Notice that perception is bolded in both definitions, as it doesn't matter if the punishment was fair or if the process of the punishment was fair, it only matters if the people who witness that punishment perceive that punishment and its process to be fair. So you could understand our--and I say our because I think I'm speaking for the whole--bewilderment when posters we know start dropping left and right without explanation. Hence, the demands for an explanation, we just wanted to ensure that people whose Internet presence we've come to know and like weren't being unjustly treated.

 

Now, this isn't an issue when a single person receives a ban, unless that person is of pretty high status (could you imagine if NUance was all-of-a-sudden permabanned one day?). So, 9/10 times this isn't an issue. But it does become an issue when a lot of well-respected people receive a ban in a short timeframe, because it affects a lot more people. For example, I didn't care too much when Polo, SW, and AtB received the ban, but cared a whole lot when tschu and Chaddy received their punishments "out of nowhere." I'm sure a majority of the board felt the same way and that some people felt the same way when the former 3 were punished.

 

In instances like this, I'm simply not a big fan of the "no-tell" policy. Doesn't mean I'm going to leave, but that doesn't mean that the policy in place is the best policy. Of course, openly stating reasons why posters receive permabans isn't the correct policy either--it creates a lot more work for the moderators. But I'm willing to bet the most useful policy lies somewhere between openness and KGB secrecy. Part of the work that a couple of my graduate school colleagues do has dealt with after-action reviews, which are essentially debriefing meetings where people talk about what happened, why it happened, and how it could be done better next time. I'm not advocating for after-action reviews, but perhaps someplace where we non-moderators could know the what happened and why it happened part could go a long way in resolving any violations of the perception of procedural/distributive justice.

 

At the end of the day, each and every single one of us wants what he or she thinks is best for HuskerBoard. But change can't or doesn't happen without there being some sort of conflict. Time will pass, and Polo and SW will find their place in HuskerBoard lore. But this board will always be here--so long as it can be paid for--and so it's in all our best interests to make everyone's time here as enjoyable as possible.

[zoogs]

Yes, you-who-defy-acronyms , I understand the questions completely.

 

All I've got to offer is laying out what I have -- and expressing my belief that when another member of our team decides to take an action like this, it's not done without thought or merit. And yes, I know that to some, that's not enough.

 

I'll say the actions of a few here post-ban speak for themselves with regard to the kind of members they intended to be here. For the others, I won't speculate. But I have outlined the reasons why members might get banned -- namely, a belief from our side that they no longer intend to be amiable, non-disruptive members of the community.

 

Now, you may disagree with that judgment, or think it's unfair. I expect everyone will have an opinion on this, opinions that run the gamut. Especially when it's a regular, and especially when their change in tone was so recent and sudden. I can respect the different opinions here. However, when multiple admins evaluate where things stand with a member and reach the same conclusion, I'll defer. And, again, if they wish to address them specifically, they will. I can't speak for them on it.

 

Lastly, yeah. Every action we take is a learning opportunity. There's no end to that. Just as we expect the best of our members in working towards making HB a better place, so too for ourselves. I hope we on the staff most of all will have things learned from experiences such as these, and fruitful discussions to be had about it as the dust settles, both amongst ourselves in review, and in the dialogue we regularly have with everyone else.

 

That's really enough from me for the night, and maybe for a while, whew. I think I've spent this entire day talking to various people about this topic, and I apologize for being a little knackered out, but I hope you guys have found a little of what I've said helpful.

[Eric the Red]

I will have a "state of the board" up in the next few days at the latest, possible tomorrow, until then, please discuss the Huskers. That's what we're all here for.

[Eric the Red]

BTW, I voted yes in the poll.

[sd'sker]

i am done with this board. it is disconcerting how seriously those in control take made up rules. it is embarrassing how they take themselves so seriously. but at the same time, this is a place for friends to gather, converse, and stay in touch. and those guys that can no longer come here were friends. and i see no point in continuing here when people that become important to me are arbitrarily and capriciously exorcised. none of them needed to go and they all did more good for the board than bad. so while what those in control do may be petty, it has heavy consequences. this may be melodramatic, i no longer know because this board is concurrently so serious and a joke, but i see no reason to remain a poster and thought i would share why.

 

take care, you guys.

[Ratt Mhule]

If someone gets banned, they should have an appeal every six months or so. If they are voted back by the majority of members, they should be allowed back. Never understood banning someone forever.

[It'sNotAFakeID]

I for one, am abandoning this thread. I'm going to go back to discussing Husker football, which is why I'm here. I'm not here to whine, bitch and moan about how my pride got hurt and how I believe I was the victim of injustice on the internet.

 

So, for all of you who like to complain about how 'wronged' you were...remember you signed up for this bulletin board and you gave all the mods and admins the RIGHT to do as they saw fit by agreeing to their terms. And don't let the door hit you where God split you.

 

 

Thanks!

[Junior]

I guess many of us feel like an explanation would help us understand the seemingly arbitrary nature of the bans. Why some posters are banned and some seem able to do and say anything they want.

[Whistlebritches]

I guess many of us feel like an explanation would help us understand the seemingly arbitrary nature of the bans. Why some posters are banned and some seem able to do and say anything they want.

That's pretty much where I'm at with all of this. I look at the list of people getting banned and can't figure out why other posters seemingly post garbage all the time with immunity.

[knapplc]

 

I guess many of us feel like an explanation would help us understand the seemingly arbitrary nature of the bans. Why some posters are banned and some seem able to do and say anything they want.

That's pretty much where I'm at with all of this. I look at the list of people getting banned and can't figure out why other posters seemingly post garbage all the time with immunity.

 

 

1) Who are these "other posters?"

 

2) The mods don't see everything. If you're seeing "garbage" and you don't report it, and you see "garbage" again from the same person... that's on you.

[zoogs]

It could also be on us.

 

Guys, our mod hats aren't on all the time. Usually we are just participants on a discussion board like everybody else. It's only when we have to that we say, "OK, let's pull up the member history. Let's check past discussions on, or with this member. (In some cases), let's ask what others on the team think we should do here."

 

So it's not immunity. Although it may be we just don't think it's a problem, it may also be we haven't gotten around to it. It may even be we have, and those members are already down a chance or two. But we're really looking to give people as many chances as we can, provided they're still interested in them.