main
side
curve
  1. Welcome to the new boards! Details here!

So, Grimby's banned? What's the deal, guys?

Discussion in 'Communications' started by FamousAmos, Nov 5, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. HL&S

    HL&S Magistrate Emeritus star 7 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Oct 30, 2001


    So were the other admins not taking what you did seriously enough? Either what you did was something to be banned over or it wasn't. If it wasn't then you should have accepted the judgment of the other admins
     
  2. Bacon164

    Bacon164 Jedi Grand Master star 7

    Registered:
    Mar 22, 2005
    I also dislike nuts in my brownies.
     
  3. TiniTinyTony

    TiniTinyTony Super Bowl Pick 'Em Winner star 6 VIP - Game Winner

    Registered:
    Mar 9, 2003
    Snotty banned me twice last night. It was wonderful.
     
  4. HL&S

    HL&S Magistrate Emeritus star 7 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Oct 30, 2001
    So in the Strilo demotion thread that is linked with this it was pretty much revealed that something went wrong regarding the banning of the Head Admin.

    From what I understand Grimby flamed Strilo in a pm and turned himself in (correct me if wrong). Rogue Jedi informed Grimby that he did not believe a ban was necessary but just a warning. LAJ FETT believed a 24 hour ban would be appropriate. Though I'm not sure if either one physically saw the pm in question with their own eyes or if they took Grimby's word for it. If they didn't, that's another problem. Anyways Grimby decided that a 48 hour ban was appropriate and thus Rogue banned him for that length citing conduct unbecoming of an administrator.

    The problem I have here is Grimby recommending anything regarding his punishment. Once the problem is identified whether it be by Grimby turning himself in, Strilo reporting him, or being caught some other way, it was not in his hands anymore. This decision belonged to Rogue and or LAJ on what if any punishment was required. If those two could not come to an agreement then a FF Admin (apparently) should be brought in to help break the tie. Anything further and you should contact Wise. The other two admins can say they ultimately agreed with the 48 hour ban, but they never should have been persuaded with that to begin with as that was the problem users recommendation.

    So can we get this spelled out in the [link=http://boards.theforce.net/rules_announcements/b10719/27141387/p1/?0]Moderator Complaint Resolution Process.[/link]

    Also can we get point 6 in the Moderator Expectations in the [link=http://boards.theforce.net/rules_announcements/b10719/27141421/p1/?0]Rules of the Jedi Council Forum thread[/link] changed to reflect a more specific statement. Currently it says:

    6. The only person(s) who may ask a staff member to step down is the Head Administrator (or any Site Owner). However, we do have a formal process for lodging and investigating complaints against staff. More information on these procedures may be found here.

    If the Head Administrator has to ask someone to step down, we need it stated that a full inquiry on why the staff member should step down be peformed first. Not saying that isn't usually done now, but it needs to be spelled out. As it reads now it sounds (even if not true) that the Head Admin is all powerful and no justification is needed for the removal of a staff member.



    P.S. Also in the future before a mod or admin is banned, make the statement as soon as its done. Don't wait for someone else to notice.


    That's pretty much it. :p

     
  5. Grimby

    Grimby Technical Consultant & Former Head Admin star 7 Staff Member Administrator

    Registered:
    Apr 22, 2000
    I think I mentioned this, but I took the initiative to recommend a ban before there had been much discussion on what to do about it. The PM in question was posted in full in the admin forum, so yes, all of the admins were able to read it. I believed a ban was necessary because I felt that it was inappropriate for an admin to be speaking to someone else that way, and I would have recommended a ban had it been one of the other admins. Rogue will need to clarify this, but I think the reason he felt the PM didn't deserve a ban was because he wouldn't have banned a regular user for sending the same thing. LAJ may have been thinking more along the lines that I did, in that moderators and admins are held to a higher standard and as such, action needed to be taken. It should be noted here that Rogue did agree with the length of 48 hours in the discussion after it had been proposed.


    Now, as far as your suggestions about updating the MCRP and the Rules of the JC, both have been noted in the appropriate MS threads and will be discussed. There's a lot to be learned from recent events, so I'm sure these won't be the only changes brought up.
     
  6. Espaldapalabras

    Espaldapalabras Jedi Master star 5

    Registered:
    Aug 25, 2005
    It has been a while since I've come to Comms, but man you guys are crazy hilarious. All these fairly stupid rules that people who volunteer spend their time enforcing because the owner of the site who can't be bothered to review policies years after some decision was made? And here you have a "rule against discussing bans" but the person banning was also the person being banned, and a the leader of this online community didn't feel the need to explain himself prior to taking action, but was doing it out of principle? I understand you don't want to talk about bans because of the controversy it would cause, but it should have been pretty obvious that in following a rule meant to prevent controversy in this case would only create more controversy.

    I'd just like to thank all the Senate mods past and present for the almost complete lack of this sort of nonsense.

    Who doesn't like good internet drama, but if you are going to make an example out of yourself, don't try to keep it secret. And considering the fact just because some rules have been around for 12 years doesn't make them good rules, it is just anybody who cared about them left long ago.

    And I still think the prohibition of homoerotic fan fiction is funny. ;) You'd think an owner of a website bent out of shape about somebody writing about a gay kiss between two fictional characters would have some sort of opinion on advocacy of gay marriage and the like, but I'm not complaining and it certainly isn't something I'd want any attention drawn to.
     
  7. JoinTheSchwarz

    JoinTheSchwarz JC Head Admin & Community Manager star 8 Staff Member Administrator

    Registered:
    Nov 21, 2002
    Cool story, Espaldapalabras.
     
  8. Brandon Rhea

    Brandon Rhea Manager Emeritus star 5 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Jun 26, 2004
    The bold part of your post is the important part.

    Whether Grimby, the other admins, or the rest of the MS wanted to discuss this or not, it's ultimately up to the owners. If they say "this is how it is," then that's how it is. That's not something the MS can decide for themselves.
     
  9. Espaldapalabras

    Espaldapalabras Jedi Master star 5

    Registered:
    Aug 25, 2005
    I know, I just think the whole dynamic of volunteers spending their free time enforcing the rules set by others who don't frankly seem to be that involved themselves is odd. That is more of a social commentary on humanity than a criticism. I have no interest in it, and I come here because the debate in the Senate is relatively free from interference but the rules enforce a higher standard of discussion than other sites I've been.

    It is just when I move outside that sphere there is a lot of stuff that just doesn't seem like adults would spend much time worrying about, and I don't know why people bother.
     
  10. Brandon Rhea

    Brandon Rhea Manager Emeritus star 5 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Jun 26, 2004
    Fair enough.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
http://boards.theforce.net/threads/so-grimbys-banned-whats-the-deal-guys.31353838/page-5
boards.theforce.net
crawl=CC-MAIN-2018-17
67367
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:2BT6GH3KYMRLA47OGHJ4VOLVTNJ6FBYE
<urn:uuid:cfa839ae-cef3-4817-a973-855503bef8b8>
2018-04-25T18:33:06Z
45.63.15.159
text/html
sha1:MNSYXDW3DA5MDFVZTE2RBMDWSPABRWXB
<urn:uuid:78b62dd5-66d0-4da7-ab84-55a04c7587b2>
http://boards.theforce.net/threads/so-grimbys-banned-whats-the-deal-guys.31353838/page-5
response
<urn:uuid:01667f4d-142e-4160-9b12-52d9cbe6ece9>
robots: classic
hostname: ip-10-179-87-62.ec2.internal
software: Nutch 1.6 (CC)
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2018-17
operator: Common Crawl Admin
description: Wide crawl of the web for April 2018
publisher: Common Crawl
format: WARC File Format 1.0
conformsTo: http://bibnum.bnf.fr/WARC/WARC_ISO_28500_version1_latestdraft.pdf