reefs should not have been banned

[Irisha]

The rules are important, I agree... But... Are rules more important than people like Reefs?.. One of the best members in the Spiritual Forum was sacrificed because of the rules? And where were the rules violated by him? Somebody has reported #14 post in Spiritual Ego thread, but there are no names calling in the post... Reefs has done A LOT for the Personal Development of the members of the Forum. Was he banned for that? Rules cannot be more important than people who make the rules. This loss for the Forum is much bigger than Reefs' "violation" of rules which was not actually a violation, it was just his peculiar style , - and it helped people to grow! Maybe they didn't get it properly because they see what Personal Development is in a different way... But can it be the reason for punishing the person who teaches in a different manner?
We all make mistakes sometimes... If it was Reefs' was it really so big as compared to what his input to the development of spirituality in this Forum was?
Is it possible to reconsider this decision, please?

[MariconesUnited]

I'd love hearing a detailed explanation for his banning myself. I understand if that's not an option however.

[ZephyrusX]

This would violate the principle of fairness, in my opinion. Are you suggesting that some people based on popularity or merit ought to be above the rules? Wouldn't that in effect make the rules pointless?

Originally Posted by Irisha

The rules are important, I agree... But... Are rules more important than people like Reefs?.. One of the best members in the Spiritual Forum was sacrificed because of the rules?

[Angela]

Originally Posted by Irisha

The rules are important, I agree... But... Are rules more important than people like Reefs?

I think a more precise question (though possibly not the one you meant to ask, I realize) is: "Is Reef's (or anyone's) participation here so valuable that it is more important to make sure he's able to keep participating, and so an exception should be made to the rules to which he agreed in participating here, and which he specifically said he's not going to abide by?"

In other words, should the rules we all agreed to comply with only be applied to the people whose contribution is not so valuable?

[James81]

I believe reefs should be unbanned! Power to the people!

()

I only say that because I fear that one day someone will make this very thread about me.

[ChrisGinsburg]

Originally Posted by James81

I believe reefs should be unbanned! Power to the people!

()

I only say that because I fear that one day someone will make this very thread about me.

James, you look just like one of my past bosses. In fact, I'm wondering if it is you!

[ZephyrusX]

James looks like my sister's husband.

Originally Posted by ChrisGinsburg

James, you look just like one of my past bosses. In fact, I'm wondering if it is you!

[James81]

Originally Posted by ChrisGinsburg

James, you look just like one of my past bosses. In fact, I'm wondering if it is you!

Trust me, there are so many people that look like me in this world. There's like two guys in my area alone (a small, rural town) that look like me (and strangers are always like "Hi..uh..wait...wow omg! you look just like ____!"

When I shave my goatee and part my hair, I look like Superman. And then there's some sports guy that I get once in a while too.

It's uncanny.

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by ChrisGinsburg

James, you look just like one of my past bosses. In fact, I'm wondering if it is you!

Originally Posted by ZephyrusX

James looks like my sister's husband.

He looks like a neighbor I used to have, years ago.

[ChristsLight]

I don't like disagreeing with the other mods publicly, but I'm sad that reefs was banned. I do understand as well, but thought that he was a great member.

I had my own run-ins with him, but came to see that the problem was within me, not him. He just has a..way of saying things that can get to people's buttons really easily.

I don't see him as rude, actually; I just think he was sarcastic, which I can understand because I can be that way, too.

It unsettles me for some reason that I can't put my finger on. In the end, if it were up to me, I wouldn't have banned him, but what's done is done.

[Irisha]

Originally Posted by ZephyrusX

This would violate the principle of fairness, in my opinion. Are you suggesting that some people based on popularity or merit ought to be above the rules? Wouldn't that in effect make the rules pointless?

Sure, not. But there are always exceptions to the rules... Doesn't Reefs deserve to be such an exception? If he made a mistake, (and we all make mistakes), was it really such a bad mistake? Didn't he have many more merits than those ridiculous mistakes (if somebody sees them)? Isn't it obvious that he is NOT the person who is able to offend? What seems to be rude to some people is NOT rude, it's his HUMOR, people just didn't understand that. But it's NOT something to be banned for! At least exceptions to the rules can be applied in this case ...

[Irisha]

Originally Posted by Angela

I think a more precise question (though possibly not the one you meant to ask, I realize) is: "Is Reef's (or anyone's) participation here so valuable that it is more important to make sure he's able to keep participating, and so an exception should be made to the rules to which he agreed in participating here, and which he specifically said he's not going to abide by?"

In other words, should the rules we all agreed to comply with only be applied to the people whose contribution is not so valuable?

I haven't read your post yet when I replied saying about exceptions to the rule.
I don't think he is so much guilty to deserve being banned.
I also think everybody is valuable.

[moonrambler]

Originally Posted by ChristsLight

I don't like disagreeing with the other mods publicly, but I'm sad that reefs was banned. I do understand as well, but thought that he was a great member.

I had my own run-ins with him, but came to see that the problem was within me, not him. He just has a..way of saying things that can get to people's buttons really easily.

I don't see him as rude, actually; I just think he was sarcastic, which I can understand because I can be that way, too.

It unsettles me for some reason that I can't put my finger on. In the end, if it were up to me, I wouldn't have banned him, but what's done is done.

Well, the subject was on the table for 24 hours, and you didn't add any input until after the banning took place. How come?

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by moonrambler

Well, the subject was on the table for 24 hours, and you didn't add any input until after the banning took place. How come?

I didn't know it was on the table. How does one know it was on the table? Is there a thread, somewhere?

[moonrambler]

Originally Posted by Irisha

Sure, not. But there are always exceptions to the rules... Doesn't Reefs deserve to be such an exception? If he made a mistake, (and we all make mistakes), was it really such a bad mistake?

It wasn't a mistake. It was intentional. We asked him three times to stop it, and he stated that he would not stop. That post, from last night, is here on the forum for everyone to see. Even after that, we let him go on till late the next morning in case he just said that out of annoyance.

What do you suggest then about forum rules? Throw them out? Let certain people break them?

[moonrambler]

Originally Posted by Beingist

I didn't know it was on the table. How does one know it was on the table? Is there a thread, somewhere?

I meant it was brought up in the mod forum Monday morning and we didn't actually act on it until 24 hours passed.

[Irisha]

Originally Posted by ChristsLight

I don't like disagreeing with the other mods publicly, but I'm sad that reefs was banned. I do understand as well, but thought that he was a great member.

I had my own run-ins with him, but came to see that the problem was within me, not him. He just has a..way of saying things that can get to people's buttons really easily.

I don't see him as rude, actually; I just think he was sarcastic, which I can understand because I can be that way, too.

It unsettles me for some reason that I can't put my finger on. In the end, if it were up to me, I wouldn't have banned him, but what's done is done.

But what is done can be undone!
We all should be able to forgive! And when it is something done by mistake, we all make mistakes sometimes, and should correct our mistakes!

Thank you, ChristsLight, you really bring light, and you were honest when you had said that you try to be brutally honest.

[Irisha]

Originally Posted by Beingist

I didn't know it was on the table. How does one know it was on the table? Is there a thread, somewhere?

How can we read about it? What was it so badly violated?

[ChristsLight]

Originally Posted by moonrambler

Well, the subject was on the table for 24 hours, and you didn't add any input until after the banning took place. How come?

I've not been around the forums as much as usual the last two weeks. I've been pretty sick, and had a lot of personal stress with health insurance and such this week, so I didn't see the thread. I came to see it after I saw he was banned.

Please don't think I'm blaming you for your decision—I'm not at all. It's a tough decision to make. i was just saying I don't think I would have done it.

[moonrambler]

Originally Posted by Irisha

And when it is something done by mistake, we all make mistakes sometimes, and should correct our mistakes!

It. Wasn't. A. Mistake.

Again -- what should we do about the rules? Eliminate them? How many warnings should a person get before being shown the door?

How can we read about it? What was it so badly violated?

You're reading about it here. I don't know how much more there is to tell you.

[moonrambler]

Originally Posted by ChristsLight

I've not been around the forums as much as usual the last two weeks. I've been pretty sick, and had a lot of personal stress with health insurance and such this week, so I didn't see the thread. I came to see it after I saw he was banned.

Please don't think I'm blaming you for your decision—I'm not at all. It's a tough decision to make. i was just saying I don't think I would have done it.

Okay. But -- as a moderator -- how do you get around his continuous breaking of the rules and continuing to flaunt that after his public warning last night?

[James81]

Originally Posted by moonrambler

Okay. But -- as a moderator -- how do you get around his continuous breaking of the rules and continuing to flaunt that after his public warning last night?

I think you could solve this problem by introducing some lesser bans before jumping straight to a permaban.

This very situation highlights why you don't just jump straight to a permaban on the first banning, but, rather, maybe insert a couple intermediate bans for situations like this.

Perhaps if Mr. reefs had a week to cool off, he'd get the picture and come back and stay within the rules. If not, then a month off might do the trick. If not, THEN you permaban him.

I think that instead of jumping straight to permabans, have two other levels:

1st ban is a week ban
2nd ban is for a month
3rd ban is permanent

[ChristsLight]

Originally Posted by moonrambler

Okay. But -- as a moderator -- how do you get around his continuous breaking of the rules and continuing to flaunt that after his public warning last night?

I honestly don't know. It is something I have been asking myself in general.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by ChristsLight

I honestly don't know. It is something I have been asking myself in general.

I think it's important for you, as a moderator, to distinguish the answer to that question, because I feel it's important for moderators to be able to articulate their considerations for why a moderation action should be taken or not. Even if you're not directly involved in determining a particular action. Otherwise, it's not really fair, I don't think, to have members operating in the dark about what you're likely to do about this or that kind of posting.

If you don't know why you would or wouldn't take an action as important as banning a member, I think it's only fair that you abstain from participating in making those decisions until you are able to do so.

That's not to say you might not have an excellent reason that is burbling around in your unconscious. Just that I think such decisions ought to be made very consciously.

[Shift]

The moment I started reading reefs' posts, I knew his time was limited. I pretty quickly stopped reading his posts because I knew he was just passing through.

It's not the first time a member has garnered a fanbase before being ejected for intolerable behaviour. Sometimes the banned member takes on martyr-like status, praised for their willingness to stand up against the oppressive forces of authority.

It's important to remember that no one asked reefs to join the forum and break the rules. For all of his perceived intelligence and wisdom, reefs didn't conduct himself in an appropriate manner. Does that somehow mean that reefs is an unfortunate victim of the system? Sounds to me like he's a victim of himself.

In conclusion, ♥♥♥♥ happens. A new guru will rise up to take his place. Hopefully this one knows how not to get banned.

[Irisha]

Originally Posted by Angela

I think it's important for you, as a moderator, to distinguish the answer to that question, because I feel it's important for moderators to be able to articulate their considerations for why a moderation action should be taken or not. Even if you're not directly involved in determining a particular action. Otherwise, it's not really fair, I don't think, to have members operating in the dark about what you're likely to do about this or that kind of posting.

If you don't know why you would or wouldn't take an action as important as banning a member, I think it's only fair that you abstain from participating in making those decisions until you are able to do so.

That's not to say you might not have an excellent reason that is burbling around in your unconscious. Just that I think such decisions ought to be made very consciously.

But ChristsLight HAS ALREADY SAID THAT HE DOES KNOW THAT THERE ARE NO REASONS TO BAN REEFS ACCORDING TO HIS OPINION.
His answer was distinguished enough.

TO DOUBT about if you are right or not is much better, BY THE WAY, than to be sure that you are right. This is a good, positive feature, to doubt . People make FEWER mistakes when they are doubting, thinking, analyzing.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by Irisha

But ChristsLight HAS ALREADY SAID THAT HE DOES KNOW THAT THERE ARE NO REASONS TO BAN REEFS ACCORDING TO HIS OPINION.
His answer was distinguished enough.

TO DOUBT about if you are right or not is much better, BY THE WAY, than to be sure that you are right. This is a good, positive feature, to doubt . People make FEWER mistakes when they are doubting, thinking, analyzing.

I agree with you that leaving room for doubt in making choices, being open to and aware of ways to be flexible. My point isn't about doubt; it's that I'd prefer moderators choices be made consciously, with conscious awareness of what the parameters are. Because weird things happen all the time, that can take reevaluation from time to time, of course.

[Irisha]

Originally Posted by moonrambler

It. Wasn't. A. Mistake.


You're reading about it here. I don't know how much more there is to tell you.

There is. Could you tell us, please, what exactly Reefs had said that was so much inappropriate and so bad that he VIOLATED the rules?
There are different opinions if it was SO much inappropriate. If there are people who don't understand humor and sarcasm do you think others should be deprived of Reefs' brilliant way of conveying the ideas, his INTELLIGENCE and INTELLECT, and WISDOM which so many people in this forum enjoyed?

If the opinions differ why not to make things clearer ?

From WHAT everybody reads HERE it's impossible to get what was SO wrong.

[moonrambler]

Originally Posted by James81

I think you could solve this problem by introducing some lesser bans before jumping straight to a permaban.

This very situation highlights why you don't just jump straight to a permaban on the first banning, but, rather, maybe insert a couple intermediate bans for situations like this.

Perhaps if Mr. reefs had a week to cool off, he'd get the picture and come back and stay within the rules. If not, then a month off might do the trick. If not, THEN you permaban him.

I think that instead of jumping straight to permabans, have two other levels:

1st ban is a week ban
2nd ban is for a month
3rd ban is permanent

Steve is against this. He says historically it doesn't work.

[moonrambler]

Originally Posted by Irisha

But ChristsLight HAS ALREADY SAID THAT HE DOES KNOW THAT THERE ARE NO REASONS TO BAN REEFS ACCORDING TO HIS OPINION.

Uh . . . he didn't say that.

My impression was that ChristsLight said he DOES know there ARE reasons to ban Reefs, but that he isn't comfortable with the banning and wouldn't have agreed about it.

And, we already didn't ban Reefs once before after discussing it at length, even though there were reasons then to do it too. These situations generally are looked at pretty thoroughly.