Banned a trustee?

KilnRed;11133 wrote: Good grief, folks. Seriously?! It was my choice to "ban" Malcolm. That said, he is hardly banned. If he wishes to return, he will be allowed as he left the forums at his own will. Not sure why everyone is so concerned but I asked Malcolm privately if he wanted his posts removed. His simple response, "Yes." I performed a "soft delete" to most of his posts and chose to "ban" his ID as opposed to delete it so that his account would be able to be restored in the future, if he wishes to contribute.

So asking for your posts to be deleted = a request to be banned?

I'm still not understanding the decision to "ban" his ID. Unless there was some behind the scenes request (from Malcolm) to do so, your action comes across as punitive to me.

If we can keep this to an adult conversation, I will keep this thread open to your feedback. Contrary to what many may think, I don't use this role as a moderator as a way to "dictate" or reign supreme. These are your forums and I want to moderate as you see fit, so please chime in.

That said, this is really simple. If Malcolm wishes to contribute again and he wants his posts restored he should just come forward and say so. It was his decision, in the first place, to decide against further participation.

JWise;11135 wrote: So asking for your posts to be deleted = a request to be banned?

I'm still not understanding the decision to "ban" his ID. Unless there was some behind the scenes request (from Malcolm) to do so, your action comes across as punitive to me.

Hi Jarrod,

No, Malcolm did not request to be banned. He request for his posts to be deleted; the ones that which he had not already deleted himself. Malcolm openly stated he was discontinuing his participation. Clearly a disgruntled poster who's contributions were trending in a negative direction. He claimed during one instance that he mistakenly edited a post by another member. Maybe it was a mistake, but there were a great many set of actions that must have been excused to accept this "mistake" explanation.

You have two options to deal with this poster, in my opinion. The first, delete his ID. This would have been a 1-click answer. Instead, I chose the other option. Going through each individual post and performing a soft delete on 470 of his posts. I then banned his ID. Choosing this action allows his member profile, and his past contributions, to be restored. I felt this was a better option as Malcolm is a 928er at heart and I suspect he will, again, want to contribute.

To be clear, the same set of actions were used in the handling of SeanR's account.

KilnRed;11137 wrote: Hi Jarrod,

No, Malcolm did not request to be banned. He request for his posts to be deleted; the ones that which he had not already deleted himself. Malcolm openly stated he was discontinuing his participation. Clearly a disgruntled poster who's contributions were trending in a negative direction. He claimed during one instance that he mistakenly edited a post by another member. Maybe it was a mistake, but there were a great many set of actions that must have been excused to accept this "mistake" explanation.

You have two options to deal with this poster, in my opinion. The first, delete his ID. This would have been a 1-click answer. Instead, I chose the other option. Going through each individual post and performing a soft delete on 470 of his posts. I then banned his ID. Choosing this action allows his member profile, and his past contributions, to be restored. I felt this was a better option as Malcolm is a 928er at heart and I suspect he will, again, want to contribute.

To be clear, the same set of actions were used in the handling of SeanR's account.

Thank you, Austin, for your explanation. I still respectfully disagree with the decision to ban their ID's, as I don't think it was necessary, but I appreciate the courtesy and thoroughness of your response. We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I hope you will consider lifting their ban without them having to ask you to do so.

Stan.Shaw@Excell.Net;11122 wrote: Horrific and incorrect accusations on your part. So, you now enter the realm of others, that make *public* accusations without any investigation or even a simple private query, that would have prevented you from casting aspersions on my good name.

Nope. That's why I worded it that way. Here are my words again, just so they can be read again:
"Stan, if you are behind this action, you must recuse yourself from this election immediately to curb the appearance of impropriety. If you are not behind this action, then this must be corrected immediately"

This a public forum of a private club. There must not be even a hint of impropriety and any private dealings would be inappropriate. I cast no aspersions towards you but asked the question and told you what should happen were you involved. Banning a person from the forum who is up for re-election could skew the results. If there is no ban, then there is no problem.

There is a question mark in the title of this thread.

Not everybody is out there to "get" you. This election is not about you. It is about James and Andrew and the lot.

JWise;11138 wrote: Thank you, Austin, for your explanation. I still respectfully disagree with the decision to ban their ID's, as I don't think it was necessary, but I appreciate the courtesy and thoroughness of your response. We'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

Thank you for the peaceful exchange. It is relieving to see some posters can still argue their positions without making personal attacks. Thank you for your input. I will consider it, Jarrod. These are your forums and I won't lose sight of that. These issues are tough to deal with, no doubt. And I am trying my best to do the best job I can in moderating these forums fairly and consistently.