Senior Members Being Banned

[Neblasian]

Hi guys.

I have noticed for a while that more and more senior members are getting banned. Looking at some of their posts I realised that some of their behaviours had changed for the worst overtime. Isn't this a personnel development website? I would expect an improvement not a deterioration. Maybe that they were just putting up formal fronts at first and their true personality began to immerge when they got more comfortable. Maybe being called a "Senior Member" gave these people a huge boost in their ego and this fueled some of their arrogance. Just want to know some of your opinions about this or am I delusional.

Please note that I am not bashing the site for it had helped me alot.



Best Regards

[vMike]

I noticed many members with a bunch of posts are banned as well, but the ones I saw only posted some crap anyway

[carenkh]

Originally Posted by Neblasian

Isn't this a personnel development website? I would expect an improvement not a deterioration.

Personal development is something you don't get by just reading and posting on a site. Many, many posts - which is all one needs to become a "senior member" - doesn't equal growth.

[seeker5]

Senior Members sometimes go kittywompus and get banned. Sometimes they do it on purpose (consciously or unconsciously) because they want to stop being addicted to coming on here. One senior member even explicitly asked to be banned so his addiction would be stopped. At other times, they just self-destruct in a public manner. That's unfortunate, but it does happen.

However, I don't think that the rate of senior members being banned is increasing at all. I know we have a lot more senior members now then a year ago, or two years ago when the forum was just started. Therefore, you have more opportunities to view a banned member's older posts then you did a year or two ago.

I agree with Caren, just because this is a personal development forum, doesn't mean everyone can restrain themselves from engaging in trollish behavior or personal insult behavior (which is pretty much why senior members tend to get banned). Furthermore, this is a forum with a very high standards. So some behavior that some members may engage in other forums would tend to result in them being banned here.

[Adrienne]

exactly what seeker said...

I would like to add tho, that when a senior member goes kittywompus, those posts are deleted, so most members never see them. You dont really get to see the real reason they were banned. With many of them, you can see the downward spiral but not the explosion.

With a senior member, we warn them a few time typically too to let them know they are attacking people or trolling or breaking other forum rules.

Adrienne

[Angela]

To me, it looks like "going kittywompus" usually means a member is really, very, strongly attached to Being Right about an issue that comes up, because (s)he strongly identifies his beliefs around the issue with Who He Is. Not Being Right, to that person, feels like a matter of death vs. life, so the struggle gets pretty heated, and he'll lash out in pain and anger, trying desperately to keep a particular belief in place by making personal attacks on other members who believe otherwise.

A lot of times, members will catch themselves and notice how they are creating their own experience, and they'll have a big breakthrough for themselves. And sometimes they're just not ready for breakthrough, and they'll go Full On Kittywompus (FOK) and just *forget* that they can express their opinions, even extremely dissenting ones, without personal attacks, name-calling, or other forum rule breaking.

[yossarian]

Other successful forums that have been around for decades have introduced the concept of "temporary bans" to give people cooling off periods.

You guys might consider this. I believe the current forum software supports it.

Temporary bans can be extremely effective ways to get the message across without totally alienating someone forever. A few forums I frequent do 3-day and 10-day bans for first offenses and it seems to work well. If someone continues the trouble they will do 6month bans, and they actually rarely do permanent bans.

The nature of an internet forum is that it gets a lot of social runoff.. stuff people can't say in real life they vent on a forum instead and then feel bad afterwards. You tend to see a lot of people who were banned coming back 6 months later and being remorseful about it, and become constructive posters.

[seeker5]

Originally Posted by yossarian

Temporary bans can be extremely effective ways to get the message across without totally alienating someone forever. A few forums I frequent do 3-day and 10-day bans for first offenses and it seems to work well. If someone continues the trouble they will do 6month bans, and they actually rarely do permanent bans.

We used to do temporary bans of a few days. However, from what I've seen and heard, it never really worked. The behavior, after a while, resorted to what it used to be. Thus, the temporary bans tended to simply delay the actual permanent banning. That's why now we just pretty much just go straight to permanent banning, after all the warnings/discussions have been exhausted. However, I don't think we've tried 6 month banning yet.

The nature of an internet forum is that it gets a lot of social runoff.. stuff people can't say in real life they vent on a forum instead and then feel bad afterwards. You tend to see a lot of people who were banned coming back 6 months later and being remorseful about it, and become constructive posters.

That's pretty interesting.

[Cran]

I have participated (and even moderated) in forums that use temporary warnings.
Typically, you'd get a first warning with no consequnces, a second warning with a short temporary ban, then a half year/year or a temporary ban.

Did it work? Not really. Like Angela said, someone might be ready for a "breakthrough", if he is, a short warning will suffice. If he isn't, nothing will change him, especially not a temporary ban, it would only make the person more angry (my experience). When I issued a ban, I had to deal with many nasty emails from the person and his/her supporters complaining about the unfairness etc. etc. and as soon as the ban was over, the trouble resumed, often worse because of the "hurt feelings".

This damaged the whole community and contributed (not the sole cause) to an unfriendly posting-environment and decline in membership.

[bluedragon]

I'm surprised that these people don't come back with different usernames, or are they banned by IP ? Even in that case, many internet connections have the property of changing ip every time you connect...
Anyway, as you may know, I am generally against any form of punishment, but I'm aware that there have to be some rules on a public forum. I don't know what I'm gonna do when I'll have one on my own site...
Anyway, it really seems like a conscious choice when a member goes "kittywompus" : )) I love that word. It should be easy to guess when a post will get you in trouble, especially since they also receive warnings.

[sk8joyful]

Originally Posted by yossarian

Other successful forums that have been around for decades
have introduced the concept of "temporary bans" to give people cooling off periods.

You guys might consider this. I believe the current forum software supports it.

Temporary bans can be extremely effective ways to get the message across without totally alienating someone forever. A few forums I frequent do 3-day and 10-day bans for first offenses and it seems to work well. If someone continues the trouble they will do 6month bans, and they actually rarely do permanent bans.

The nature of an internet forum is that it gets a lot of social runoff.. stuff people can't say in real life they vent on a forum instead and then feel bad afterwards. You tend to see a lot of people who were banned coming back 6 months later and being remorseful about it, and become constructive posters.

Good post!

[Brutha]

Temporary bans can be extremely effective ways to get the message across without totally alienating someone forever.

We don't intent to "get the message across".

Good behavior changes shouldn't come from carrot and stick but from conscious change.

We might help someone by explaining to them why there behavior lacks in certain parts, but we ban people because we think that our community is better of without them instead of intending to punish the person and create fear energy that will change them.

If someone doesn't want to be the kind of person that respects our forum rules, that doesn't mean that the person is bad.
On the other hand it does mean that the person doesn't belong here.

Our guiding question isn't "Does that person deserve to be punished?" but "Would our forum be a better place that encourages conscious growth if that person would get banned?"

I'm surprised that these people don't come back with different usernames, or are they banned by IP

Some people do come back. It takes a bit of smarts to detect those people and reban them but we manage to reban a few people who reregister.

It starts with the intuition that you think that a certain person might be coming back. You can ask the forum software whether a given person shares the IP with other people who posted something.
Even if you have dynamic ips, you can look up where that IP comes from.

If we would ban someone from Bucharest and a person that creates the suspicion of being the same person starts posting again, we can conclude that it's the same person.

[Andrew Brunelle]

They got banned because they broke the Terms of Service repeatedly. They were asked to stop, and they did not. It's as simple as that, or maybe simpler. I'm not a moderator, so I really can't know for sure.

[yossarian]

Originally Posted by Brutha

Good behavior changes shouldn't come from carrot and stick but from conscious change.

Generally it's not a question of good or bad behavior, it's a question of etiquette. Every forum has unique etiquette guidelines that are determined by fuzzy boundaries, set by the unique interpretations of the moderators who happen to be involved.

The carrot and stick isn't to change the person, it's to communicate the specifics of the etiquette while protecting the forum.

Prison isn't to punish people, it's to protect society. But the justice system doesn't only deliver life sentences and warnings. There is the idea that the sentence should be commensurate with the violation.

Not that it's a big deal or anything, but I do think people change, and I don't look at a 6month ban as punishment but rather a strong communication, a cooling off period, and also a protection of the forum.

[Judge]

My ego gets me banned everytime

I always want to help others, but when your ego wants to defend it's position, that leads to all sorts of problems online and of course in the real world.

Judge

[Keith]

Originally Posted by Neblasian

I have noticed for a while that more and more senior members are getting banned. Looking at some of their posts I realised that some of their behaviours had changed for the worst overtime. Isn't this a personnel development website? I would expect an improvement not a deterioration. Maybe that they were just putting up formal fronts at first and their true personality began to immerge when they got more comfortable. Maybe being called a "Senior Member" gave these people a huge boost in their ego and this fueled some of their arrogance. Just want to know some of your opinions about this or am I delusional.

IIRC, "Senior Member" just means you've hit a certain threshold of posts. It's not real surprising that there's a strong correlation between people who 'go kittywompus' and people who post a lot.

P.S. Personally I think permanent bans is a silly idea for a forum dedicated to personal growth. It's kind of contrary to the "people can improve over time" philosophy...

[Judge]

Originally Posted by Keith

I think permanent bans is a silly idea for a forum dedicated to personal growth. It's kind of contrary to the "people can improve over time" philosophy...

Senior Members who get banned are usually very egoic in nature. They have strong personalities and while they are very passionate to add value, their ego's tend to undermine their passion to help others.

I know that feeling

Judge

[Keith]

Originally Posted by Judge

Senior Members who get banned are usually very egoic in nature. They have strong personalities and while they are very passionate to add value, their ego's tend to undermine their passion to help others.
I know that feeling

That doesn't change what I said though - permabans are as good as saying "No matter how much you change and grow you'll never be good enough for our forum again". Do you really think that it's impossible for people to get their egos under control during a 1-2 year ban? Heck, Eckhart Tolle reckons he did it over the course of a single night.

[Brutha]

The carrot and stick isn't to change the person, it's to communicate the specifics of the etiquette while protecting the forum.

I communicate the specifics of the etiquette by telling another person the specifics.
If I assume that the other person is a conscious individual you actually wants to follow the etiquette but just didn't know punishing the person makes no sense.

Prison isn't to punish people, it's to protect society. But the justice system doesn't only deliver life sentences and warnings. There is the idea that the sentence should be commensurate with the violation.

Actually the Steve Pavlina forum doesn't happen to be a state. It happens to be a place where a community gathers to build relationship with each other to grow with each other.

If you have a love relationship you don't say either: "Hey let's end our relationship for 6 month because you misbehaved and afterwards we simply continue it and I hope you will behave better in our relationship.
The only reason to reenter into a relationship is having talked together about the reasons of the break up and agreeing to change.

Do you really think that it's impossible for people to get their egos under control during a 1-2 year ban?

If they do and really understand that it was the right decisions to ban them at the time they got banned, writing Steve or another moderator and asking to be unbanned might be the better way.

It's kind of contrary to the "people can improve over time" philosophy...

We do have a "people can improve through conscious choice"-philosophy instead of a "people improve because time passes by"-philosophy.

[bluedragon]

Seems pretty harsh to me. But then again, any form of punishment makes me uneasy. Prison is not to protect society, otherwise why would it punish people who killed someone by accident? I would not permanently ban someone if I had a forum, and I'm sure there are better methods. But maybe you know better since I've never had a forum yet. When I do, I'll try to implement an original system.

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by Keith

IIRC, "Senior Member" just means you've hit a certain threshold of posts. It's not real surprising that there's a strong correlation between people who 'go kittywompus' and people who post a lot.

100, I believe. A pretty difficult mark to hit if you're not incessant or long-lived. There are only about 500 senior members: about 3%.

I believe that the first person banned was a moderator.

Originally Posted by bluedragon

Prison is not to protect society, otherwise why would it punish people who killed someone by accident?

Prison is also an opportunity for a second chance, for those people who don't receive life sentences. But they are forcibly required to take time to reflect on their actions, during which society does not have to deal with them directly. As Dent says in Dark Knight, "Think of what you could do with 18 months of not having them on the streets."

[silicon toad2000]

In a different part of the net Im an admin. The people we ban either stay banned out of respect or just find a proxy and come back. We only use temporary bans as users who want to get back will manage somehow.
They might generally have a different knowledge set than most of the people here.
It's probably a tough call, a permanent ban will mean 1 less site visitor, a temporary ban carries the risk that they might come back and alienate more.

[yossarian]

Originally Posted by Brutha

Actually the Steve Pavlina forum doesn't happen to be a state. It happens to be a place where a community gathers to build relationship with each other to grow with each other.

If you have a love relationship you don't say either: "Hey let's end our relationship for 6 month because you misbehaved and afterwards we simply continue it and I hope you will behave better in our relationship.
The only reason to reenter into a relationship is having talked together about the reasons of the break up and agreeing to change.
If they do and really understand that it was the right decisions to ban them at the time they got banned, writing Steve or another moderator and asking to be unbanned might be the better way.
We do have a "people can improve through conscious choice"-philosophy instead of a "people improve because time passes by"-philosophy.

I guess I just see membership on a forum to be more similar to membership in a community rather than a one-on-one relationship.

Even in one-on-one relationships it is hardly rare for people to get back together again after some time passes.

Most communities/tribes throughout history use temporary punishments that scale to fit the infraction, and imo it's not for "punishment" it is based on pure effectiveness.

Just because someone is unable to behave up to some perfect standard does not mean they aren't conscious, or aren't attempting to live consciously. It's not like "conscious living" is when you just flick a switch and then instantly you are a "smart person". It takes time, it takes failure, and it takes give-and-take with those around you. Most people learn through failure, and being banned on a forum is going to be a learning experience for most people whether they realize it or not.

I'm not just talking out of my butt either.. i've been posting on forums for over 12 years and I've seen many many people come back 6 months, a year, sometimes even 3 or more years after they've been banned and they are totally different people who are eager to make amends and reconnect with those who they had conflicts with.

Some people just break the rules to make chaos, but I'd reckon that most bans are people who get angry and lose control of themself and start lashing out because they're going through an emotionally charged time in their life. Kind of like Steve when he was doing juice feasting. It happens. People make mistakes, people get irritable and do things they regret. Personally, if the person is sincere, I'm a believer in second chances.

[Keith]

Originally Posted by Brutha

The only reason to reenter into a relationship is having talked together about the reasons of the break up and agreeing to change.
If they do and really understand that it was the right decisions to ban them at the time they got banned, writing Steve or another moderator and asking to be unbanned might be the better way.

So that's an option then? It's the first I've heard of it and it sounds eminently more reasonable than a literal permaban.

[Brutha]

They might generally have a different knowledge set than most of the people here.

Maybe they also share less about themselves. People who get banned here usually have strong individual views on certain topics.

It's probably a tough call, a permanent ban will mean 1 less site visitor, a temporary ban carries the risk that they might come back and alienate more.

Actually I don't believe that website visitors are scarce.
I don't care much about quantity but quality.

Most communities/tribes throughout history use temporary punishments that scale to fit the infraction, and imo it's not for "punishment" it is based on pure effectiveness.

For most tribes throughout history sentencing a person with exile was a very hard punishment that really effected the life of the person who got sentenced.
Even if you think that it's great to be part of this forum your life shouldn't end if you have to leave it.

Additionally we aren't like most communities or tribes. Most human beings tend to be fear based. Scaring people into changing might work sometimes, but it isn't our strategy for moderating the forum.

So that's an option then? It's the first I've heard of it and it sounds eminently more reasonable than a literal permaban.

Contacting myself without having access to the forum is hard (it's possible but you need to do some searching), but people like Dan or Bruce use their realnames which means that you can find their website and write them an email.
If you manage to convince one moderator that moderator will open a thread in our internal forum and make a case for unbanning.
Then we decide on the case at hand.

[seeker5]

Originally Posted by yossarian

I
I'm not just talking out of my butt either.. i've been posting on forums for over 12 years and I've seen many many people come back 6 months, a year, sometimes even 3 or more years after they've been banned and they are totally different people who are eager to make amends and reconnect with those who they had conflicts with.

Yossarian: What are the forums where this happens? I'm interested in taking a look at those forums myself to check it out.

If you prefer not to mention them publicly, can you pm it to me?

[Dharma]

Temporary bans don't work because you're blacklisting someone who's being effected by their unconscious behavior and they're probably not conscious enought to see it or know how to deal with it effectively. There's really no support for them. Sorry bud you're on your own.

So the behavior never changes because no new consciousness has gotten in there.

[Keith]

Originally Posted by Dharma

Temporary bans don't work because you're blacklisting someone who's being effected by their unconscious behavior and they're probably not conscious enought to see it or know how to deal with it effectively. There's really no support for them. Sorry bud you're on your own.
So the behavior never changes because no new consciousness has gotten in there.

Are you seriously saying that people can't become conscious? Isn't that the entire focus of these forums?

An aside: On the "behavior changes shouldn't come from carrot and stick" thing, I doubt a single banning is sufficient to condition someone. What it is though, is a wakeup call. A shock. That's often the sort of thing that encourages people to reassess their lives and become more conscious. (Kind of a moot point if you have an alternate route back in, but I wanted to point out the flaw in the original logic there).

[Brutha]

An aside: On the "behavior changes shouldn't come from carrot and stick" thing, I doubt a single banning is sufficient to condition someone.

That happens to be the reason why temp bannings don't work very well.

I do think that the kind of PMs that we use as warning message do provide some opportunity for people to wake up. I don't think that the reception to the message would be greatly enchanced by a added 3 day ban for the first wrong doing.

[Dharma]

Originally Posted by Keith

Are you seriously saying that people can't become conscious? Isn't that the entire focus of these forums?

Not saying that. If someone's support for change is the forums, then getting booted from them won't help them and they will probably repeat their behavior again after a cooling off period.