LNE Forum Policy and much much more

Here you can socialize and have fun with other board members, and talk about all sorts of topics that are not related to Lyme disease.
Post Reply
Cobwebby
Posts: 1716
Joined: Mon 29 Oct 2007 0:55

LNE Forum Policy and much much more

Post by Cobwebby » Fri 5 Oct 2012 18:52

•LNE operates a three strike policy. Users will be warned a maximum of three times for any and all offences in a three month period. If the need arises for a fourth warning a temporary ban will be put in place of between 7 days to 1 month.
•Arguing with the admin after having received a warning will lead to an immediate additional warning. Should this exceed three strikes a temporary ban will be put in place as above.
•Any attempt to circumvent a temporary ban will lead to that ban being made permanent. Circumvention includes re-registering under a non-banned username, changing IP addresses to evade an IP ban, registering a new email account to evade an email ban.
•An exception to the three strike rule applies when users contact the admin personally (via any method) and post insulting, indecent or vulgar material. Such users may be subject to an immediate permanent ban.
•Permanent bans are a last resort and thought is given before implementing them.
Last edited by Cobwebby on Mon 15 Oct 2012 3:50, edited 1 time in total.
The greater part of our happiness or misery
depends on our dispositions,
and not on our circumstances.
Martha Washington

Camp Other
Posts: 996
Joined: Wed 2 Mar 2011 4:32
Contact:

Re: LNE Forum Policy

Post by Camp Other » Fri 5 Oct 2012 19:00

Cobwebby wrote:
•LNE operates a three strike policy. Users will be warned a maximum of three times for any and all offences in a three month period. If the need arises for a fourth warning a temporary ban will be put in place of between 7 days to 1 month.
•Arguing with the admin after having received a warning will lead to an immediate additional warning. Should this exceed three strikes a temporary ban will be put in place as above.
•Any attempt to circumvent a temporary ban will lead to that ban being made permanent. Circumvention includes re-registering under a non-banned username, changing IP addresses to evade an IP ban, registering a new email account to evade an email ban. An exception to the three strike rule applies when users contact the admin personally (via any method) and post insulting, indecent or vulgar material. Such users may be subject to an immediate permanent ban.
•Permanent bans are a last resort and thought is given before implementing them.
Ah, Cobwebby, thanks for pulling this out for me. I was wondering about it.

I assume Spanky is now under a temporary ban, although I have not reviewed all the posts in the past three months to see if he has received over three admin warnings... warnings may have also come via a PM, too.

Given admin mentioned not wanting any more PMs with certain kinds of content in it, potentially this is a permanent ban. I don't know, though, and it is up to the admin's discretion to decide such, as it is a serious decision and cannot be revoked.

User avatar
Spanky
Posts: 2762
Joined: Sun 20 Jul 2008 19:40

Re: LNE Forum Policy

Post by Spanky » Wed 10 Oct 2012 21:21

"Camp Other":
I assume Spanky is now under a temporary ban, although I have not reviewed all the posts in the past three months to see if he has received over three admin warnings... warnings may have also come via a PM, too.
So far as I am aware...I quit. I wasn't banned.
Given admin mentioned not wanting any more PMs with certain kinds of content in it, potentially this is a permanent ban. I don't know, though, and it is up to the admin's discretion to decide such, as it is a serious decision and cannot be revoked.
I don't recall ever having received any prior warnings.

Cobwebby
Posts: 1716
Joined: Mon 29 Oct 2007 0:55

Re: LNE Forum Policy

Post by Cobwebby » Thu 11 Oct 2012 19:20

Just when you thought it was safe to go back in the water...
The greater part of our happiness or misery
depends on our dispositions,
and not on our circumstances.
Martha Washington

admin
Site Admin
Posts: 342
Joined: Wed 25 Jul 2007 21:06

Re: LNE Forum Policy

Post by admin » Fri 12 Oct 2012 17:02

Source: http://www.lymeneteurope.org/forum/view ... 011#p32011
Camp Other wrote:Actually, I'm wondering what the policy and procedure is for members who are banned. Can Spanky or anyone else who is banned come back, and under which circumstances? I've been banned once (not here), and the method used was to block my IP block from registering - however, anyone with any amount of net savvy would know that this can be overcome and there is no way for those doing the banning to be sure the original IP address from which I was posting was in fact mine.
There is no written policy for members who are banned. If banned members think they can change their behavior and follow the forum rules, they can request to be unbanned and then I will consider it.

The forum rules are here: Forum rules, etiquette and other things you should know.

Note that it says: "The determination of what is construed as indecent, vulgar, inappropriate, or otherwise not complying with these forum rules as noted in these points is up to the admin and not users."

User avatar
Spanky
Posts: 2762
Joined: Sun 20 Jul 2008 19:40

Re: LNE Forum Policy

Post by Spanky » Fri 12 Oct 2012 21:33

"admin":
Note that it says: "The determination of what is construed as indecent, vulgar, inappropriate, or otherwise not complying with these forum rules as noted in these points is up to the admin and not users."

Uh-huh.

I wonder, though, if the Admin would allow, tolerate, some crticism, intended as constructive criticism in regard to the above? Since the Admin sees fit to discuss this so openly...

Yes, it is your forum, and as I and others have noted previously, I was certainly grateful for the opportunity to post here, as most of Lymeland is dominated by a very one-sided, heavily-censored mentality that does tolerate the slightest opposition. So, yes, I respect, very much, what you have tried to do here.

And, while I would say to you that I recognize that it is, in essence, your "ball" and you can do whatever you want with it...I doubt that it is particulary wise to bluntly state that to others who have also spent a considerable amount of time and effort trying to make positive contributions.

As I see these type of forums...they are really analagous to a trust, for the benefit of the contributors...and NOT the owner or adminstrator.

I think that the contributors are OWED certain things by the Admin in return...and paramount, above all...fundamental fairness and even-handedness in the enforcement of the forum rules.

This is particularly important in terms of the discussions of some of the issues involved in Lymeland, as one side of the argument has maintained a policy of trying to silence or shout-down opposing views.

Forum rules are meant to protect the civilized flow of discussion...but particularly...to protect the rights of those who may hold minority, and unpopular viewpoints. This is also the fundamental rationale behind the Anglo-American notion of freedom of speech...the protection of the rights of political minority viewpoints.

The problem I have encountered here...is that the Admin does not appear to enforce the rules...and allows frequent baiting, taunting, harassment and ad hominems by certain posters. You can see this easily in this very thread.

When I first joined here, I was met with a barrage of insults for simply asking questions. Among the names I was called were" "redneck antisemite", "homophobe" and "mysogynist".

The Admin said: NOTHING.

Now...the Admin advises that we are supposed to, in essence, turn the other cheek to this type of attack.

But it is the ADMIN's role to make sure that no one HAS to "turn the other cheek". And you accomplish that by simply PUBLICLY making a sure and swift example of the poster that broke the rules.

When you do NOT...you simply send a message that this type of behavior will be tolerated and ensure that it will be repeated.

I was never raised to "turn the other cheek". But the problem in responding in kind is that it is the second guy who repsonds that usually gets the penalty from the officials (as all hockey fans know).

And the Admin also OWES the posters here the benefit of having their alleged 'sins' specified in clear and concise terms.

NOT, like this:
Admin: "There have also been repeated pleas in restraining a clearly abusive and disruptive practice by ONE OTHER poster. Several people also feel that multiple threads have been interrupted by ONE OTHER poster".
While I have no doubt that some posters may have whined about some of my comments behind my back...I think that I have a right to be able to address the specifics...and not some vague accusation that may or may not be the Admin's gut feeling.

And the fact remains...that the Admin has NEVER complained to ME regarding the above.

But what has been going on here lately is just plain STUPID.

Carina was offered some very constructive advice by Camp Other, a long time ago, that all she needed to do...IF...she wished to be understood was to simply refer to late stage Lyme as late stage Lyme. Treated or untreated. That term is understood everywhere. Of course, she would rather not. A fact that the Admin seems not to take notice of.

There is NO need for this continual harassment of opposing views that Carina doesn't care for...by interrupting every damned thread with this same, exact dribble. And then to suggest that this is somehow some sort of defense of the European terms versus the North American? How divisive is that?

And the Admin needs to figure out that someone can still intentionally disrupt discussion by using tactics that don't technically violate stated forum policy...and basically, EVERY discussion can be interrupted with this type of "point"...and still, technically, comply with the forum rules, while being completely disruptive.

And how may times were requests for intervention completely ignored?

But look, Admin...the bottom line is that through inaction you have now allowed Henry, obviously a highly-qualified Lyme disease EXPERT...and me, an attorney with more years of experience than I would rather admit, (including antitrust litigation and political life...and survived that )...

...to vote a vote of "no confidence" by voting with our feet and leaving. Simply because it has just become too damned dumb and too diffcult to maintain anything that resembles a sane exchange of ideas. Both Henry and I spent hours and hours trying to explain to Carina how little the differences in terminology meant.

You have somehow managed to support the view that resulted in this chaos...and managed to "dumb-down" your own forum.

I would hope that you would think about that.
Last edited by Spanky on Fri 12 Oct 2012 21:47, edited 1 time in total.

X-member
Posts: 11616
Joined: Mon 30 Jul 2007 18:18

Re: LNE Forum Policy

Post by X-member » Fri 12 Oct 2012 21:41

Spanky:
Carina was offered some very constructive advice by Camp Other, a long time ago, that all she needed to do...IF...she wished to be understood was to simply refer to late stage Lyme as late stage Lyme. Treated or untreated. That term is understood everywhere. of course, she would rather not. A fact that the Admin seems not to take notice of.
Now you forget Spanky, that WHEN this problem come, is when OTHER people (or when a study from Norway use European definitions for example) do NOT use the definition late Lyme disease.

Do not accuse ME of using the "wrong terms" like chronic Lyme borreliosis (or "chronic Lyme") in those situations, or in a topic about European guidelines.



Thank you!

Edit to add:

And admin understood the problem as you can see here:

http://www.lymeneteurope.org/forum/view ... 150#p31996

User avatar
Spanky
Posts: 2762
Joined: Sun 20 Jul 2008 19:40

Re: LNE Forum Policy

Post by Spanky » Fri 12 Oct 2012 23:09

Just one more thought in additon to what I said above...and ignoring the interruption which, sadly, just again, proves my point...

...what I thought was really great about what had been happening at LNE, and nowhere else...was the exchange between Dr. McDonald and Henry and hv808ct.

When both sides of a position are adequately represented, then the 'jury', in essence, can come to some sort of opinion as to which of the expert opinions it finds credible.

The back-n-forth and debate served everyone well.

Shame to have lost that, which was so valuable, in my view, over such complete nonsense.

Bagge
Posts: 596
Joined: Wed 19 Oct 2011 19:49

Re: LNE Forum Policy

Post by Bagge » Fri 12 Oct 2012 23:30

Spanky wrote:Just one more thought in additon to what I said above...and ignoring the interruption which, sadly, just again, proves my point...

...what I thought was really great about what had been happening at LNE, and nowhere else...was the exchange between Dr. McDonald and Henry and hv808ct.

When both sides of a position are adequately represented, then the 'jury', in essence, can come to some sort of opinion as to which of the expert opinions it finds credible.

The back-n-forth and debate served everyone well.

Shame to have lost that, which was so valuable, in my view, over such complete nonsense.
I completely with you on this one, Spanky. I seriously do respect and admire the Admin of this forum for a wide variety of reasons, but at this point facilitating the dialogue between Dr. McDonald, Henry and hv808ct seems invaluable. Frankly, if it can't be done here, I will consider trying to learn how to set up similar forum software for the three of them to 'have at it'. I won't be as understanding and polite as the Admin here in entertaining certain types of distractors.
.

radicale
Posts: 134
Joined: Fri 4 May 2012 16:51

Re: LNE Forum Policy

Post by radicale » Sat 13 Oct 2012 0:00

You guys are acting like children. If you find what others say a rude distraction then simply ignore them. Writing essay's on what is correct and what is not about the behaviour of certain members on an online forum is pointless.

Ignore and move on.

Post Reply