An Official Banning Policy?

Thanks for the link to here.

May I restate the inquiry as to why Annebeeche was banned?

On a related note, can I ask where, if anywhere, the guidelines for ban evasions are laid out? They aren't in the rules (as linked to above the reply box) and the system seems to work on the principle of "they'll figure it out for themselves".

I don't know where they have been explicitly laid out, but the policy seems "common sense" to me. If someone gets banned an ban-evades, clearly the first level of ban wasn't enough (and that person has no respect for site policies). Thus a higher-level ban (i.e. the bounce) is applied.

Edit: Since I know it's going to come up, we do take efforts to confirm that ban evasion is indeed occurring—we're not going to use ban evasion measures just because one person points their finger and cries "Evader!" I know that annoys the people who have already made up their mind, but hasty action in this regard is worse than letting a ban evader post for a few more hours.

edited 20th Dec '11 11:36:45 AM by Ironeye

I'm bad, and that's good. I will never be good, and that's not bad. There's no one I'd rather be than me.

Noted - but this still doesn't address the Anne Beeche point.

"Well, it's a lifestyle"

I don't claim to speak for Eddie per se, but I might attempt to paraphrase his concern, which is that we are not interested in providing a place for people to tell us how to do our jobs.

Suggestions and constructive criticisms are great, and believe me that we do talk about them, privately. We hear your concerns, but in turn please accept that we can't always make the conversation about them public, and we have a strong bias against tacking on additional policies simply for the sake of clarifying "don't be a dick" for people who try to Rules Lawyer the system to their advantage.

To apply a metaphor that may come back to haunt me (but I'll plunge ahead anyway because that's what I do), when a police officer stops you and issues you a ticket, you don't win any points by telling him he's being a jerk.

edited 20th Dec '11 11:44:39 AM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

I remember seeing a post by Anne that's now thumped. I don't recall what the exact content was, but I remember seeing it and thinking "Anne, come on, you know better than to do that."

I don't like that this happened, as I generally think Anne is pretty cool, but honestly, I don't buy that she didn't know exactly what can of worms she was opening.

edited 20th Dec '11 11:47:28 AM by INUH

Infinite Tree: an experimental story

So Anne was banned for criticizing the administration, is that what we're getting out of this?

Liveblog | Deadblog

For being a jerk about criticizing the administration.

Edit: Let me clarify. The official logged reason is "too many thumps", by which I take the frequently laconic Eddie to mean that the preponderance of jerk-ness outweighed the value of her continued participation here. The criticism was the final straw.

edited 20th Dec '11 12:04:01 PM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

If by criticise, you mean "express views critical of", that's not good. If we mean "be offensive towards", that's more understandable.

(Edit)Well, define being a jerk.

edited 20th Dec '11 12:04:33 PM by captainbrass2

"Well, it's a lifestyle"

Anne's posts were really very polite though?

edited 20th Dec '11 12:06:16 PM by Tongzhi

I didn't review them myself; I'm communicating the situation as I understand it. Eddie himself was quite a bit more blunt about the matter, but that's his way.

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

^^A lot of them were, but like I said, I definitely saw one, I think the last post she made, that made me go "Anne, you really know better than that." And I like Anne.

edited 20th Dec '11 12:10:14 PM by INUH

Infinite Tree: an experimental story

To be honest, it feels a bit pointless to ask about these things, since the offending posts are thumped, and thus out of the public eye, leaving it up to those who might think "well that doesn't sound right" to rely on the ever-subjective "Well he/she didn't seem too bad to me."

Some translucency wouldn't hurt, I'm just saying.

Liveblog | Deadblog

The main reason I ask is that there's room for misinterpretation in the current rules. If I was to be banned, say, and made an alternate account to question my ban (as other users do), I know that I should only be posting in Edit Banned. However, there's nowhere on the site which, to my knowledge, actually says this.

Do correct me if I'm wrong, though.

Anne's ban seem to have been mostly down to cheeking the administration. That seems to be an apt summary.

This still sounds dangerously like a ban for asking questions/holding opinions that annoy the admin.

"Well, it's a lifestyle"

Ellsworth, please don't sarcasm your way into a rules thump. I'm really not inclined to participate in that level of absurdity.

It is his site. Ultimately he calls the shots, even for us mods. If you really want to turn this into a referendum on Eddie as a person... [shrug]... Well, I don't think you'll like the results. This isn't a threat, just an observation.

edited 20th Dec '11 12:15:45 PM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

This was the last post she made. Judge for yourselves, I guess.

"Accusing people of "just coming here to complain" and judging people by the size of their edit history adds nothing to the discussion and does nothing to support your argument or refute his. It is also, quite frankly, very rude."

E: Also, just personally, I think that censoring people's posts when they violate a rule makes it hard to tell what posts are and are not acceptable here.

edited 20th Dec '11 12:15:46 PM by Tongzhi

And leaving posts that violate the rules and serve as jumping-off places for fights will accomplish exactly what?

...if you don’t love you’re dead, and if you do, they’ll kill you for it.

Thumping does do that, although there are good reasons for it in many cases.

That last post is rather confrontational in tone. Unfortunately, she happens to be right, logically anyway (I don't want to comment on the rudeness).

Ninja'd on the first point.

edited 20th Dec '11 12:21:33 PM by captainbrass2

"Well, it's a lifestyle"

"Thumping does do that"

It doesn't do that at all unless you can travel back in time to see what the post used to be.

EDIT: Well, this is now irrelevant! *smacks self for troll-feeding*

edited 20th Dec '11 12:27:13 PM by battosaijoe

The esteemed Mr. Toohey is a sock of a banned troper. We all know how that ends up. Next!

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"