There should be a Banned/Deleted Forum. SP members should be able to read why a fellow member was banned. The person that was banned should be able to respond and fellow SPers should be able to respond as well. I do not believe the Elves are going to get it right all the time with their decisions and this forum could be used to "air it all out".

Agreed, it would help keep the more important forums filtered from that stuff. And this way they would not pop up on the front page (if designed like off route).

I think we should have a forum designed to meet the needs of people using "telepathic communications" to express themselves.

Marmaduke wrote:There should be a Banned/Deleted Forum. SP members should be able to read why a fellow member was banned. The person that was banned should be able to respond and fellow SPers should be able to respond as well. I do not believe the Elves are going to get it right all the time with their decisions and this forum could be used to "air it all out".

Did you Elves want to address this?

From my little time as an elf, it seems to me that the people who got banned had it coming. I wouldn't be interested in having those decisions second-guessed and "aired out" as you put it. Did you ever hear of a web forum with a feature like that? It's just an invite for a raging flame war? And Josh, one thing I've seen over the years is that bad behavior *always* spills out of whatever container it was supposed to stay politely in.

Sorry Marmaduke it's a bad idea, right up there with Summitpost should become Wikipedia.

sjarelkwint wrote:

mvs wrote:Sorry Marmaduke it's a bad idea, right up there with Summitpost should become Wikipedia.

Awesome idea

Don't restart that one Stef! Actually I was really into that for a while because I felt like I had lots of little things to contribute but rarely a whole mountain/route page. One look at the "Talk" page on any Wikipedia entry will give you a demoralizing look into how difficult that style of editing can get. In comparison now, I'm reasonably happy with our current protocols here.

mvs wrote:And Josh, one thing I've seen over the years is that bad behavior *always* spills out of whatever container it was supposed to stay politely in.

Sorry Marmaduke it's a bad idea, right up there with Summitpost should become Wikipedia.

Alright. As for the wikipedia idea, I'm working on something myself for that on my site. SP could easily have that feature but things would look like how they are in Egypt real fast!

mvs wrote:From my little time as an elf, it seems to me that the people who got banned had it coming. I wouldn't be interested in having those decisions second-guessed and "aired out" as you put it. Did you ever hear of a web forum with a feature like that? It's just an invite for a raging flame war? And Josh, one thing I've seen over the years is that bad behavior *always* spills out of whatever container it was supposed to stay politely in.

Sorry Marmaduke it's a bad idea, right up there with Summitpost should become Wikipedia.

First of all let's be clear, I did not make the Wikipedia suggestion.

Secondly, I guess then mvs you are saying you guys make the right decision 100% of the time. But you do admit that you haven't been here long in this capacity. Is there any method of defending yourself in these situations? If the decisions of the elves had to be made public and the SP member was able to air his/hers side of the issue. You guys would be reeled in somewhat. It wouldn't be so heavy handed. I would want to have my grievances aired if I felt I was wronged. And you suggestion that it would invite a raging flame war is a saying we can't act like civil people. If those who are being banned couldn't use the forum in a respectful manner then the decision to ban becomes quite evident. For those SP members that know of the posted that were left or know about the reasons for the ban can't use the forum in a respectful manner, well easy to ban them. Again, if I was felt I was wronged by this site and banned, I'd be pissed off and demand I be heard. You basically are being judge and jury with these matters. You need to think this through and come up with a better system for banning/delete, the system is very flawed.

The only way to ask the admins if you can rejoin is by rejoining which if they don't except you, they get even more mad. A catch 22 in my book.

Marmaduke wrote:

mvs wrote:From my little time as an elf, it seems to me that the people who got banned had it coming. I wouldn't be interested in having those decisions second-guessed and "aired out" as you put it. Did you ever hear of a web forum with a feature like that? It's just an invite for a raging flame war? And Josh, one thing I've seen over the years is that bad behavior *always* spills out of whatever container it was supposed to stay politely in.

Sorry Marmaduke it's a bad idea, right up there with Summitpost should become Wikipedia.

First of all let's be clear, I did not make the Wikipedia suggestion.

Secondly, I guess them mvs you are saying you guys make the right decision 100% of the time. But you do admit that you haven't been here long in this capacity. I would want to have my grievances aired if I felt I was wronged. And you suggestion that it would invite a raging flame war is a saying we can't act like civil people. If those who are being banned couldn't use the forum in a respectful manner then the decision to ban becomes quite evident. For those SP members that know of the posted that were left or know about the reasons for the ban can't use the forum in a respectful manner, well easy to ban them. Again, if I was felt I was wronged by this site and banned, I'd be pissed off and demand I be heard. You basically are being judge and jury with these matters. You need to think this through and come up with a better system for banning/delete, the system is very flawed.

You are not banned. The ones involved will (have been) informed. There were reasons. End of discussion.

SoCalHiker wrote:You are not banned. The ones involved will (have been) informed. There were reasons. End of discussion.

I said IF, I know I'm not banned- you can end the discussion SoCal but this proves my point that the system is flawed. Once again, you guys are acting as judge and jury. If this was out in the open you guys would approach this much differently. Just my opinion.

Marmaduke wrote:First of all let's be clear, I did not make the Wikipedia suggestion.

Of course Marmaduke, actually I think I came up with that "brilliant" idea. I didn't mean to imply that you made that suggestion.
Thanks,
--Michael

Marmaduke wrote:

SoCalHiker wrote:You are not banned. The ones involved will (have been) informed. There were reasons. End of discussion.

I said IF, I know I'm not banned- you can end the discussion SoCal but this proves my point that the system is flawed. Once again, you guys are acting as judge and jury. If this was out in the open you guys would approach this much differently. Just my opinion.

Yep, we are the judge and jury. Period.

I've been a member for 8 1/2 years, an elf for 5 1/2, and that's how SP has always rolled. It's a private website, not some kind of quasi-governmental entity, nor is it a democracy. We highly value input from members but at the end of the day, it's a benign dictatorship assisted by admins charged with day to day operations, but with ultimate control resting with the owners.

Bottom line, most of what happens here is none of your business.

Let me repeat that: most of what happens here is none of your business.

Sorry!

Banned members usually do contact us anyway to give their side of the story.

But let's be clear: this is not a court room, there is no jury. As volunteers, we don't have time or interest in doing this and frankly, it would not usually be very productive. Usually, we need to act quickly. Most of the time banned members get more discussion, consideration, warnings, second chances, and due process than given their shitty behaviors, they deserve. We usually are a lot nicer to them than they are to either the site or other members.

sjarelkwint wrote:EDIT for DaveK: a private website in what means? Loads of money to the owners? Or the best use of the information to share it with it's members???

To me, the biggest benefit would be neither of the above options. The big benefit would be: no requirement to take crap.

EDIT for DaveK: a private website in what means? Loads of money to the owners? Or the best use of the information to share it with it's members???

It means exactly what I said: it's privately owned. I hope this is not surprising to you.

The website is the property of a few owners. Members have ownership rights to their submissions, but everything else, including site management, is entirely up to the owners. Just like every other website out there.