Skip to main content

View Diary: Banning Process: Facing the Star Chamber (50 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Site policy has been not to discuss (22+ / 0-)

    the details of the process.

    Why are the reasons for banning not publicly stated when a user is removed?
    Why won't you discuss the case of a banned user in comments?

    While it would frequently be helpful for the community to know why a user was banned, in cases where it is not obvious, individual privacy concerns trump community needs. In the case of sockpuppets, the evidence of sockpuppetry may, if made public, unnecessarily expose the identity of the person banned. In other cases, private conversations between admins may hinge on the suspected honesty or dishonesty of the user, on private correspondences with the user themselves, or other non-public factors. Even if we presume a poster to be dishonest, our goal is not to publicly punish or expose the user, but merely to remove them from the community.

    The general policy of the site is not to discuss the reasons for bannings at all (save sockpuppetry), but to merely acknowledge when they take place. This avoids all possible privacy problems, and tends to at the least not prolong the disruption caused by the banned user. It also is intended as a final small act of graciousness towards the user: we may no longer be willing to allow the banned user to join in discussions here, but in almost all cases we will grant them the decency of remaining mute on the reasons why the editorial staff of the site came to the conclusions that they did.

    The point here is that banning is not an attempt to mark a person as evil or unclean or somehow unworthy of conversing with. It is merely a statement that that particular user has, for whatever reason, proven emphatically to not be a good match for this particular site. They are welcome to go elsewhere.

    From a classic diary by Hunter.
    •  Aoeu, I appreciate the quote, but (0+ / 0-)

      I really think that doesn't do it for me.  We all agree to terms of use, and we can waive privacy concerns to a certain degree.  A statement that says something even general about outside activity, which was done in a comment in another post would be helpful.  So if it could be said in a comment, why could it not be said in an announcement that could be more widely seen by people?

      When you say it is "common sense" what you are really saying is "I don't have any evidence to back up my argument", because it is quite often neither common nor sense.

      by kaminpdx on Tue Feb 26, 2013 at 10:36:36 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  We are here as guests who participate. (5+ / 0-)

        It is Kos's blog.

        When I start my own blog, I'll get to make the rules.  Until then, I'm a guest.

        It's the Supreme Court, stupid!

        by Radiowalla on Tue Feb 26, 2013 at 10:42:52 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Then don't call it a community. (0+ / 0-)

          There are people who take that seriously.

          In addition, what happened to walking the walk?

          When you say it is "common sense" what you are really saying is "I don't have any evidence to back up my argument", because it is quite often neither common nor sense.

          by kaminpdx on Tue Feb 26, 2013 at 10:47:34 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  It fits the 1st definition... (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            trumpeter, SilentBrook, Ekaterin
            noun, often attributive kə-ˈmyü-nə-tē\
            plural com·mu·ni·ties
            Definition of COMMUNITY
            1: a unified body of individuals: as
            a : state, commonwealth
            b : the people with common interests living in a particular area; broadly : the area itself (the problems of a large community)
            c : an interacting population of various kinds of individuals (as species) in a common location
            d : a group of people with a common characteristic or interest living together within a larger society (a community of retired persons)
            e : a group linked by a common policy
            f : a body of persons or nations having a common history or common social, economic, and political interests (the international community)
            g : a body of persons of common and especially professional interests scattered through a larger society (the academic community)

            2: society at large

            3a : joint ownership or participation (community of goods)
            b : common character : likeness (community of interests)
            c : social activity : fellowship
            d : a social state or condition

            When you go outside of the interests of the community why shouldn't you expect expulsion?

            I really haven't read all the rules but I'd expect there is some commonsense there, otherwise this community would not function nearly as well as it does...

            Politics can be a "Hot Issue" and many people cannot handle discussions on the subject without going postal, the WWW I say is often the Wild Wild West, and the fact that this community operates as smoothly as it does with as many members and freedoms that it has says bundles about the management of this site!

            I'd suspect that there were ignored warnings of the direction the banned persons were going and you don't know all of the facts. Perhaps you want to examine where you are going as well. This is a community that you elect to join and the community does have a right to expel those who no longer share the common interest. I'm sure that if the community doesn't meet your interests any longer you can find another that does or you can create your own as well.

            "Do you realize the responsibility I carry?
            I'm the only person standing between Richard Nixon and the White House."
            ~John F. Kennedy~


            by Oldestsonofasailor on Tue Feb 26, 2013 at 12:22:42 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Yes, there are (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            SilentBrook, figbash

            people who take it seriously.

            Ever been to Netroots?  Heard of it?  Know how/where it started?

            It is a physical/geographic manifestation of the DKos community.

            While you might not be a member of the DKos community, that appears to be by your choice.  Many of the rest of us are, and agree that it is a community.

            I am not religious, and did NOT say I enjoyed sects.

            by trumpeter on Tue Feb 26, 2013 at 12:49:30 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  In a community (0+ / 0-)

            you don't have open rights to other people's privacy.

            Words can sometimes, in moments of grace, attain the quality of deeds. --Elie Wiesel

            by a gilas girl on Wed Feb 27, 2013 at 02:31:12 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  I'm as curious/nosy as the next guy (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        tb mare, Catte Nappe, SilentBrook

        I would like to know the backstory of what's been going on among the individuals involved.

        But I acknowledge that I have no need to know, much less right to know. It does appear that there are personal issues involved; the less we know about those is actually the better.

        The matter has been dealt with, and that's that.

        Case closed.

        Well, this upset the Donald so much they could barely get him to stop flinging his feces - Bill Maher

        by lotac on Tue Feb 26, 2013 at 10:50:28 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  There are also good legal reasons to keep quiet (11+ / 0-)

        Please remember that Markos is also a lawyer.  Lawyers protect themselves and their clients by knowing exactly what they should and should not talk about.  

        To protect this entire site from legal repercussions, it really is best that the minimum be said.  Your desire to know in no way tops the Markos's need to maintain this site in such a manner that there is no reason for anyone to try and drag it and him into the courts.

        Look, I'm an information person.  I do troubleshooting and discovery for a living.  It makes me crazy not to know what's going on.

        But my desire to be in the know does not trump anyone's right to keep their business decisions private.  Hell, I don't know what actually went into the decision to terminate my employment (emphatically, and repeatedly stated, NOT for cause) after 12 years with my former employer.  I will never know.  The details of that decision are private and unless I want to allege unlawful termination, I have no right to that information.

        And my co-workers, as much as they may care and want to know, have even less right.

        Think of yourself as the co-worker of a terminated employee.  Because that's all the right to the information you have here.

        History should teach humility and prudence, but America doesn't seem to learn. I've never seen a virgin who loses her innocence so often. -- Gordon Wood

        by stormicats on Tue Feb 26, 2013 at 11:07:55 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  It's not practical (0+ / 0-)

        To have kos or someone in an official candidate aggregate such information.  The community-based solution would be form a group of volunteer meta-soldiers whose job is to seek out such information, perhaps disseminating it in a weekly meta diary.

      •  Making an announcement (0+ / 0-)

        is a huge violation of the privacy of the people who have been banned.

        If you can't see that, further discussion is probably pointless.

        Words can sometimes, in moments of grace, attain the quality of deeds. --Elie Wiesel

        by a gilas girl on Wed Feb 27, 2013 at 02:30:31 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site