D.Pham5GLTE (>60GB)

i know we're not allowed to mention people who have been banned or who can no longer post. Are we allowed to mention people who are suspended?

X

No, it's not fair to them since they can't respond. And inquiries into why they were suspended are improper as that is between them and the moderators.

Numanoid

Just out of curiosity, are suspended members warned not to mention or discuss their suspension once they return? It would make sense to me, and thinking about it, I realize that I've never witnessed anyone acknowledging their own suspension.

Again, just curious.

RandyC

I have never seen that or done that. If someone wants to discuss it, they could. I think our stance to not discuss a banned person or a suspended person during the time of suspension is more to protect someone that is not here to defend themself.

And to not motivate a banned person to have to respond (so they re-register, over and over). It creates too much admin work.

Dead

Ouch, a slight misreading and I'm left with an image in my mind that I could have lived my whole life without!

Groucho

Interesting. While I was never told so explicitly, I always thought it was a "no-no" to discuss your own suspension upon return. Which is why I have always referred to my "vacation" from the forum in veiled, whispery terms.

Static Cling

Heh. I just saw this. My response time has been down recently, though.

gcribbs

Sorry to hear about that

I hear they make pills for that.

http://www.viagra.com/




BY the way it makes sense to not talk about why you may have been suspended.

I would expect that many feel that they were misunderstood and might get defensive in posts about it making them more likely to overreact to people challenging that belief. Then we might end up losing those members for all time instead of for a few days.

Alyoshka

I was wondering...if it's not alright to discuss banned members why is it alright to make direct references to them in veiled terms? Example: "I think I'm going to call Geoff tonight at 2am. " Seems like that is as much bait as saying that the user who did that is a moron. Of course, the people who say it had something against him while he was here, so I'm not at all surprised when they do it. It just surprises me that mods don't stop it.

X

Maybe it's because those "veiled terms" aren't discussions. And it's just the same as joking about "the idiot mods keep moving my thread" type stuff.

And you are wrong if you are saying that the only people who say it "had something against him while he was here".

RandyC

I joke about it too. It's bringing the funny. I had nothing against Kenwood. The difference is it is humor based, Kenwood has since moved on, a lot of time has passed. Nothing at all like bashing someone that was just banned or hashing over what exactly happened.

That was big news when it happened. At that time, we were very open that Kenwood had called Geoff at an inappropriate time.

How is that bait again?

Alyoshka

I disagree. Kenwood's call was a reaction to two things: harrasment from other moderators and very inappropriate emails from someone in the otter farm concerning his daughter. It was a blowup that occurred from a couple months of buildup. There was much going on behind the scenes that about no one who makes the "I'm going to call Geoff at 2am" really understands. A couple of the people do understand how much goes into it and it's VERY inappropriate for them encourage saying that "joke."

It's a touchy subject for me and might well be for some others. I was only curious about the distinction between joking about why someone got banned and discussing that member. I know people have been asked not to bring up the reasons Shaggy999 was banned. It hardly seems different to me.


I guess that when it seems odd to me is when someone that had a large part in why Kenwood called will make references too it. In those cases, I know that it isn't just a light hearted jab at someone who has moved on. Rather, it's vindictive behavior towards both Kenwood, and that affects the users who really respected him that remain at dvdtalk. Everytime I see it I want to point out some of the things that I know about what happened from Kenwood's side of things, but I realize that it is over. Why keep bringing up the other side of the issue too?

RandyC

Okay. I am not sure really who you are talking about. It's no secret that at the time, I think Aaron was having some problems with him, they seemed to be going at it. But he is not a mod. I don't think any present mod did have an issue with Kenwood.

Feel free to email me privately to discuss that, because I am not comfortable discussing it publicly past this. You may have heard Kenwood's point, but I doubt you know a lot about the other side.

RandyC

We joke about Shaggy too. And NOFX. Somethings are legendary.

Alyoshka

I doubt I do either. I don't really want to discuss anything further because I don't think there was an injustice in the actions.

I was just wondering why some parts of banning can be discussed. I think I understand....

Maybe after a year or so things become more fair game to joke about.

Bushdog

How did I harass him? Want to spend a little time detailing it? While you're excusing his behavior care to comment why Kenwood spam bombed me and about 7-8 other Other Forum members months after the stupid incident?

I could go on, but I'm fast closing in on territory that makes me uncomfortable to go into on a public forum. Suffice it to say your beliefs on justice are somewhat misplaced.

Bushdog

Let me add, I do find it offensive that someone who harassed me is having excuses made for him. I like you, Curtis, but I'm not sure you know what went on.

PixyJunket

I have no clue what happened with NOFX, but he brought to life DVDTalk's greatest legacy!!

Oh crap.. that's not it is it?!

D.Pham5GLTE (>60GB)

does the same apply for a near suspension call too?

X

I'm not sure I'd push my luck. A person who had one of those might not really know how much of a break they actually got.

RandyC

There was a rule added a while back (years!) because of constant arguing and debating about the mod's decisions. Geoff asked that people stop questioning everything the mods did. I am guessing that discussing a warning would be along those lines.

Alyoshka

I didn't use your name. Someone else did. I never heard what moderator it was that he claimed was harrassing him, however, I think that is irrelevant to what I think about people still saying things about the entire situation.

My comment about justice dealt with me feeling that it was right for him to be banned. Which I think is entirely the same as what you believe!!! How is that misplaced? Don't you think that what he did deserved him being excused from the forum? I didn't want to discuss the situation more in private with Randy because I believe the moderators and Geoff did was was right in their action of banning Kenwood.



Again with the --- this still affects members on this board. I'll state again, I think that he deserved to be banned for what happened. That said, I think he also had some right to be angry about all that was going on. Whether he handled it right after he was banned is a matter I know nothing about, nor do I really care to know anything about.

I think you're precisely correct. There are two sides to every story. I think there might be four or five people who know all that went on. That is why I think it's sort of odd that we can discuss what banned members did but not the actual banned members. Obviously, what happened with Kenwood is unique to him. It just seems rather distasteful to make it into a joke.

And I'd email this to you Aaron but I couldn't find your email. Again, I don't really know what your relationship was to Kenwood in all of this. So don't feel like I was calling you out. Sorry, my bringing it up was really a question that I was confused about that seems to have exploded in ways I never meant for it to go.

RandyC

I think this really hits it on the head. I was very reluctant to discuss the Kenwood situation for example, right after it occured. There was only some discussion about it because of the vacuum of data and lots of questions/gossip and the urge of many to know.

But years later, it's not a slam on him at all. To me, it's no different than melons or El Scorcho going after underage girls or NOFX's thumb or Topbunk. These things become part of the community lore and nothing mean is meant by it.

Alyoshka

Good call. I agree completely.

Robert

I just noticed <b>Pants</b>, probably the most volitile member of the forum, has been suspended. Is it because his most recent posts have been filled with angry tirades?