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: 137

Replies are closed for this discussion.

Replies to This Discussion

Yes Glenn. This is a new option that was not available until recently. Unfortunately we can not yet pick and choose which info stays or goes. Hopefully this will change.
My comments were not directed towards you Meag.
Meag, we do keep a lot of screen shots of the offending material. Not all but most.
Thanks again for your kind words Sasha. I would hope we have earned a certain amount of the "benefit of the doubt" in these manners.
bravo. conspiracy theories are welcome to be analyzed, but without proof they remain whimsical illogical foundations for confirmation bias and groupthink. not good to start stirring that kind of stuff up without some good inside proof.
You're on the Internet... On someone else's server.

The Internet is not required to follow Geneva conventions, freedom of speech, or any other right you think you may be entitled to.

If you get banned from a server, that's your own problem.

Remember,,, the servers of the Internet are like tree house clubs... no rules but their own apply... if you can't obey those rules (regardless of whether you're aware of them or not) you are simply banned.


Be respectful... and if you're toting an opinion that the site owner disapproves of... you really should have kept your head low.
You're quite literally in their house.

... Their house... Their rules.





... welcome to the real world.

Learn to deal with it... or stay the hell out.




If there's one thing that annoys me... it's people who expect the world to be fair.
You are sort of missing the point...if the server doesn't act the way we want it to, then we can leave. If most of us leave, the people running the site aren't going to be able to keep it going for long.

They have the right to do whatever we want, and we have the right to leave whenever we want. However, we can also act like civil adults and discuss things to fix problems for everyone's benefit.
... welcome to the real world.

Learn to deal with it... or stay the hell out.


By the way, I hope that was intentionally stupid.
Johnsky, I'm not going to lie: you could use a little work on your delivery. In a small way I can appreciate what you are saying. Life is not fair- I have to agree with you there.

However, you seem to have a pretty jilted point of view with respect to the conventions of civility, which we here on AN should be pleased to bestow upon our fellow atheists, if for no better reason than to facilitate well-reasoned conversation. I know that a lot of people seem to feel that this is just another open site that they can get on and vent their frusterations on people they don't know. That they can say whatever they want without consequence.

Here's another reality check: there is a substantial majority that would rather we could maintain some level of respect and civility.

Do everyone a favor and turn down the A-Hole dial.
Alright, I feel I owe an apology.

I was in a foul mood when I posted that.

While I stand by the fact that life isn't fair, and one needs to expect to run into rules they don't agree with... you are right, I could have been a little more civil in my delivery.

I do apologise for posting while angry at things un-related to the topic.

I shal do my best to remain civil, and not to post while fuming at other issues.
Actually, I agree with Johnsky. There is far too much 'preciousness' on the internet.

Now, I recently disagreed vehemently with funkq on something he had posted. I was angry and offended and, although I don't feel I attacked him personally, I did make it blindingly obvious that I thought his post was inappropriate. In other words, I stood up for my opinion very assertively without using personal attacks or abuse (although he may have taken it that way).

Do I want funkq banned? No. Absolutely not! Whether or not he still considers me a friend, he still has my admiration and respect. I disagreed with him on one post. That doesn't diminish the many, many other things I have agreed with him about. I am a grown up. I don't need protection from being offended! I can defend myself, thank you very much!

I can get angry with someone's point of view without making a victim of myself and demanding 'protection' from them. If someone posts something I disagree with, I argue with them - why should I demand that their viewpoint or their profile be expunged from the site! They have done me a favour by allowing me to argue my case.

However, if someone becomes so vehement about their argument that they continue to pound it in different posts across the site, in the chat room and in groups, to the extent that it causes mass dissension and threatens to overtake the real business of the site, then yes, I would recommend a warning, a suspension, and then, if the behaviour continued, a ban.

If this cannot be a site which welcomes robust debate, what is the point of it?

I liked things better when Nexus was smaller and largely unmoderated. I think tight moderation causes more problems than it solves. I really think it is better just to let people battle it out between themselves. But, I realize that this is no longer possible.

In fact the Charlie Check'm incident was what changed my mind. A sustained hate-filled attack using theistically derived false evidence against a minority group was, in my opinion, above and beyond what should be tolerated on this site. To allow that to continue was, in effect, to endorse those views. The line had to be drawn somewhere, and for me, that was it.

However, Charlie was given a great deal of leeway before he was banned - even extending to phone conversations between him and members of the board. Even the extreme homophobia he displayed was not enough to have him instantly banned. It is not easy to get banned from Nexus. It is never done lightly. But, we are human, and sometimes mistakes or misjudgments are made and as you have seen in Sydni's case, Richard is big enough to review decisions and rescind them if he thinks that's appropriate. Unfortunately, while we are on the Ning platform, banning means that everything you post goes pfffft. Unless members are willing to donate enough to set up Nexus on a different platform, we're going to have to live with it.

No-one is ever going to be completely happy with the decisions made on a site with this many people.

In my personal view, Brother Richard needs to be more visible so members can have a better understanding of the person at the helm. If they knew the character of the man better, they would have far more confidence in the way this site is run. I also agree that the members of the advisory board should be made more public.

Those who seek to criticize should, perhaps, take a step back and consider that the success of this site depends, largely, upon one man, working incredibly long hours, every day of the week, for no financial return whatsoever. Richard has absolutely nothing to gain by banning people arbitrarily and everything to lose - 18 months' work building this site from nothing to the largest non-theist social network in the world! I know that no-one despises censorship more than Richard. No-one hates banning people more than Richard. But he now has a major site with a reputation to protect.

The site just can't be 'anything goes' any more, and Richard should no more tolerate someone who chooses to consistently bad-mouth Nexus and its administration here and across the internet, than you would tolerate a guest in your home complaining loudly about your bad taste in food and furnishings and the ugliness of your children. Constructive criticism is welcome - but those wishing to bring down the site with consistent negativity should not expect a welcome here.

I agree that there should be more transparency about the people consulting with Richard behind the scenes. But, largely, these are people who have been with the site since its inception, have put in long hours helping to build it up, and who have made positive contributions in the groups and forums. By the way, in answer to the recent criticism of decisions being made by 'straight white males' most of Richard's close advisers are women and I know that he also consults with gay members and African-Americans as well. Richard is not sitting up in an ivory tower. He is engaged with a wide range of views from a wide range of people and bases his decisions on that advice. He doesn't always agree with the advice he is given, but he always gives it proper consideration.

Finally, to those who get het up over these issues, please remember this is a website. It's not the real world. The people that you meet here are generally lovely people - but they're not your family and friends. If something offends you so much you feel you have to be abusive in response, report it and then step away from the computer and go hug the people you love. The opinions of people you don't know really don't matter a damn. Go and worry about how the people you do know, and especially the people you know and respect, feel about you - they're the ones that matter. And yes, I know that I have not always heeded my own advice, but I do try.
Kristy,

Thank you for adding your insight to this topic. It's an excellent conclusion to this thread.

RSS

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

 

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

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service