Recently another member emailed that Larry Carter Center has been banned suspended from A|N. Last week I learned that Sydni Moser was as well.

Passionate members of A|N are... well, passionate. I'm unaware of whether these members were banished due to their posts, A|N terms of service violations, or Ning violations.

I, and others, would appreciate if we can learn why these banishments suspensions happened, and if they can be reconsidered. If there were violations of terms of service, can they be stated clearly, and if possible, an "improvement plan" put into place.

Virtual disappearances are just plain ominous. I miss Syndi's enthusiasm and passion, and I am troubled by Larry's banishment.

Im a strong beleiver in transparency. Less than that, and do we have a virtual Atheist Kremlin, where people just get virtually disappeared?

(title changed, and edits, due to correction - these members were suspended, not banned)


================================================================

In conclusion....

The comments on this thread have broadened my own understanding of what happens when someone crosses a line, of website rules or etiquette. I hope this topic has been useful for others as well.

Unfortunately, there will be times when someone crosses a line, is persistently antagonistic, makes the site a less useful or welcome place for nontheists to visit. In some cases, people abuse or threaten others, and use their welcome to the website to abuse the very site that they are using. Sometimes that will mean action needs to be taken. Sometimes, also, people will have "issues" and can't let go. In that case, also, difficult decisions need to be made. That difficult decision may be a warning, suspension, or ban.

For additional words of wisdom, I encourage anyone who happens on this thread to read Kristy's comments.

Thanks for the thought and comments on this topic. Now it's time to move on to other conversations.

Tags: ban, banishment, etiquette, suspension, terms of service

Views: 135

Replies are closed for this discussion.

Replies to This Discussion

I'm here for the reasons you've expressed, "friendships and community". I've been to another atheist site and it seems it takes forever to get rid of a christian or someone espousing a political view. I am no longer a member of that site. This is my favorite site. I only read topics that interest me. If a topic takes a direction I do not agree with, I know how to turn it off. I'm glad we have monitors that take an interest in the site.

Keep up the good work.
Note: beware the changing post of subject lines in mid-discussion. It changes the post's URL and people will see "article not found" when they look for the original. The paranoid will say that the conspiracy deleted you.
As I mentioned to you before Daniel, let's not get swept up in the paranoia of copyright. The greater issue isn't that of technically breaking the law, but people who are either too lazy or too incompetent to cite and link appropriately and insist on dumping complete copies of documents that exist elsewhere here. It's basic etiquette and a minimum expected standard to do this properly. I am all for the ruthless eradication of people that don't have the basic decency to construct their posts with a bit of thought. It's a matter of having respect for your fellow denizens.
Understood, oh green one. :-)

I did wonder / was speculating if that was the issue however. From Ning's terms of service: "Ning will promptly terminate without notice any Member's ... access to the Ning Platform, including access to any Social Network, in appropriate circumstances where the Member is a "repeat infringer" of copyrights."

and from our own rules and guidelines:
"Do not post copyrighted materials. Posts, videos, or pictures found to contain copyrighted materials may be deleted without warning."

Uh oh. I just noticed that Ning has a copyright on Ning's materials. I think I have to suspend myself now. Oh wait, I quoted. So it's OK. Whew.
The key thing to remember is that the worst that can happen for a first time copyright breach is a take down notice. That has never happened. So no need to panic - if common sense and etiquette exists (I know, big ask) the problem polices itself.
Well, apparently I'm in the minority, but that is nothing new.

I see a lot of paranoia here in the responses, and a significant amount of disdain for the principles of Richard and the moderators.

I find it childish and insulting that so many of you are choosing to believe that there is some kind of conspiracy here. I have no doubt that both Sydni and Larry said numerous things that warranted their suspension. I have no doubt that both of them were warned numerous times.

Let me make it perfectly clear that I did not have issue with either one of them, but I am well aware what people are capable of, especially in a heated debate.

Just because you like someone does not mean they are incapable of going too far, and just because that person would never treat you that way, means absolutely nothing about how they may treat others.

As for the comments that ask (or demand) to have an explanation, it is none of your business. A list of people and their transgressions? Are you serious? That would be a police state.

I certainly would not want everyone at A/N to know specific reasons of why I was suspended or banned. That is between the persons involved. One of you even went to far as to say that certain members are in collusion with moderators and are weeding out those they do not like. What?? Do you honestly think that there is a conspiracy? What evidence do you have?

I see a lot of animosity directed towards Richard and the moderators here. The moderators are not paid, they help because they want to make this site good for all of us. Your accusations are without warrant and honestly they are made with no knowledge of the situation at all. Speculation at best is not enough to make statements against someone's character. This is a free site. If you do not like the way it is run, go somewhere else.

Until I have solid proof that anyone was "wronged" or was suspended without deliberation and discussion, I will continue to believe that Richard and the moderators are doing an exemplary job of keeping this site a great place to be a part of, with little resources available to them. Do you have any idea how little the members contribute to this site? (Both financially and by volunteering) And you think you can point fingers and spew nonsense at will?

I think Richard and the moderators should be commended, not attacked.

If you want a site that does things differently, the way you want them done. Start your own.
One of you even went to far as to say that certain members are in collusion with moderators and are weeding out those they do not like.

That was me. Just so we're clear I was drawing attention to the destructive rumor mill trailing the suspension of a few members and the purpose was to see these rumors laid to rest. I am still in communication with a few people who have claimed to have been banned without warning and to be honest I could not bring myself to believe them. Well it turns out that one of them isn't even actually banned and that both of them were indeed warned.
Doesn't look good for their stories now does it? Believe me, I could not be more glad.

Now I have to disagree with you on the idea of posting banned individuals. I think if it was done right it could be effective at discouraging inappropriate behavior. I am thinking if the information was sufficiently buried as to require a search to find it and if it was presented in a fair manner ( Joe Shmo was banned for violation of rule #4... or whatever). Of course, perhaps I'm feeling brave about this because I do not intend to ever end up on such a list.

In any event I agree that we should all be grateful to Brother Richard and our other moderators and not be attacking them. At once we should not feel ashamed or uncomfortable about questioning their judgements, so long as it is done in an appropriate and mature manner. I sincerely hope that none of our moderators have taken personal offense to my inquiries.

It may be silly to some people, but I honestly care about this community in the same way as one cares about a face-to-face or IRL community. Hopefully the fact that I'm a bit nosey is taken as evidence of of my love for all of my fellow non-theists.
Actually it was not you that I was referring to, David.
Sorry about that Sacha, I kind of combined a short response to you (which was unnecessary) and an overall response to the post. I did not mean to imply this was all directed at you, I just didn't proof read it.
Not to worry, David. All is well.
What I said was that until I see proof, I choose to believe that the moderators and Brother Richard are doing a very fine job. Show me some proof that they are not, and I will gladly change my point of view. Exactly like No Nonsense.
I was looking at the ning.com site and it looks like when a user gets suspended, there is an option to remove their stuff at that point (or the user can remove it). Sounds like there is an option, then, to leave a user's postings, etc. intact so they would be there when the user is un-suspended. Since I haven't built a Ning site I can't be sure of that, however.

RSS

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

AJY

 

© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service