The Official Feedback Thread

[fairysyndrome]

if i may circle back to add / note:

To clarify (and to address some of the other posts above), the present situation being discussed is that a member was recently banned, and our policy is that we don't discuss members' bans for the sake of their privacy. This wouldn't be something we are looking to change, unlike the issue with communication during the 2023 camp event, which could be improved. It would actually be beneficial for us to be more open about the actions we take against users, but it's not appropriate or fair to do so. (In fact, I previously posted an apology in this thread for being a bit too open about this sort of thing.)

When a user is permanently banned, however, we may be able to give a few more specifics about what happened since they are removed from the community anyway. There is a case that relates to one of the big feedback topics we are planning to post about, where this may be applicable, but not so in this instance.

Unfortunately, as often happens, the staff are put in a difficult position where our hands are tied about the information we can disclose. I can certainly understand why a friend being banned would be upsetting, but this decision wasn't made lightly or quickly. Banning users is certainly no fun, and we'd like to avoid it whenever possible, which is why we take each case very seriously. Furthermore, we do not ban users for giving feedback or for the perceived tone of their messages, so it's incorrect to frame the situation in this way. We also try to keep a fair balance between giving chances and being quick to action. No ban is permanently set in stone either, and we're always open to hearing from the user via email (Contact Us button at the bottom of the site).

again - it's disingenuous to cite privacy as the reason for not specifying further (and for even posing statements regarding deletion of posts involving the topic per Mick) in this case due to the user not having been granted any previously (by you, Jeremy, no less, apology or no.) the threshold of what is and isn't appropriate has since in this case been crossed, and doubling back to it isn't exactly a good look in itself because of that. with this in mind, i do not think anyone is able to accept this statement that there is fair balance in good faith when there is proof of bias against this user directly in this thread - again, by you directly - as well as multiple citations here by users who have witnessed a disproportionate ratio of chances v. action especially in regards to the topics involved that many users are spared over.

now, as frankly as i may put it: i work in customer service and so have experience with this - this reads like a nothing statement that attempts to placate all yet covers none of the actual issue at hand due to the above. it's like selecting a pre-set macro for an email without editing it to actually address what the customer is actually asking about. this does not clarify anything properly. i am not a friend of the user who was banned, though i do respect his blunt tone and frank approach and have stated so directly the last time i had logged in to comment in march. where does that leave me - or the rest of us who were not close with this user but still find an issue with this situation, as Crash had asked on page 19?

 

[mogyay]

also in future if part of a reason for a ban is because too many people were agreeing with them then you should add this to the rules that people should not agree with others.. you can't blame someone for other people's actions, as mentioned in a previous post in here there's a history of staff taking too long to remove or resolve an issue at hand - that's the reason a lot of people have spoken out on recent topics, not because we're part of some cult that wants to make staff/users sad

i know i sound harsh, i truly do love this place and i'm definitely not directing this at most of the staff but i really think there's a bias going on and i wish you could try and change your perspective for a minute to see this, we all saw the personal dig jeremy made (we're all human, no hate) so to find that the same user was banned for a significant period not long after is just a bit uncomfortable, the punishment does not fit the crime, i understand a year(/life) ban for sexual harassment, stalking etc but someone being "nit picky" is just.. not it

also i stand by that it's unfair to ban someone for a year and tell them you will need to review it again after that said year.. you should decide on the period of time before the ban since you had the week to review it anyway.. it seems a bit of an abuse of power

this is all hypothetical of course since it's against the rules to speak about other people's bans

also, this may be my last post here i'm not sure, i don't mean to echo stuff already said but i just feel really upset by this, i have never taken one hiatus since i joined here (very rare in the tbt userbase lol) but i may just do so because of this, i know no one particularly cares and it's annoying when it's announced like this but i think it's important in this case!

 

[Sheando]

Well, I’ve been traveling for almost two weeks, so I’ve missed pretty much everything that has happened here. I considered not posting at all, but since this is a place for general feedback, I wanted to say a few things.

• As I’ve mentioned before, I used to moderate a forum. Bans are very challenging. A user may be harassing members via PM or trolling staff for months, but even short bans may be met with outcry from people who don’t (and necessarily can’t) see the full picture. We had a user lie about a terminal diagnosis for literal years! We had another user try to convince a minor to run away from home with them! I sympathize with the inherent dilemma of staff—respecting the site users’ desire for transparency vs. respecting users’ right to privacy. Being accused of favoritism or bullying can be very painful when you want to be like “this user physically threatened a teenage girl actually” but sometimes you can’t, depending on the situation.
• On the personal side, acknowledging that we don’t have all the information, I fully understand why users here would be worrying about favoritism or bias in this instance. I agree with others that public responses to this now-banned user have seemed strangely harsh, accusatory, out of line with staff’s general tone, and often misconstrued the user’s actual point—it has felt like there was history there that we weren’t privy to and it put other members on edge. I myself am not close friends with this person, but as a blunt communicator myself, appreciated the civil discourse we were able to have.
• More generally, on the topic of bans, I think it’s really important that the forum not become a space where “echo and validate all the approved opinions” is a requirement—even on really important topics where the approved opinions are ones I share. I have been studying feminist theory for well over a decade and write regularly about the subjugation of women, yet I think someone should be allowed to come here and post “as an evangelical Christian, I think men and women are inherently different : ) “ without being banned or warned. The natural consequence of that statement is 1) plenty of posts quoting you to disagree, and 2) members (like me) deciding they don’t want to be buddies. So much of the social internet seems designed to surround people with only their own approved opinions, and to convey that questioning and critical thinking are unacceptable and will get you ostracized. I don’t want to facilitate that here. I say this partly because of the actual banning, but also because some posts have made me wonder if other members would like staff to be quicker to ban/punish users for having Incorrect Opinions on important topics, and I just wanted to say that I don’t want that and I don’t think it’s healthy for a community. I think the appropriate staff action is events like Celebrating Diversity that clearly convey the overall majority values of the forum.
• To me, banning should be for trolling, unsafe behavior, cruelty, and targeted statements toward specific users. So to me, “I enjoy tapping into my naturally feminine urge to do domestic labor” is, you know, not great as a concept, but forums are for discussion. Whereas quoting a user and saying “lol get back in the kitchen” is a punishable offense. If it’s deemed too stressful or hurtful to have discourse on certain topics (as has been the case in the past) I think I would be more comfortable with staff banning particular debates/opinion topics than punishing members for stating their own personal opinions on those topics. I would also agree that there are exceptions to this and ways to state an opinion that ARE inherently hurtful—but I don’t believe that disagreement is inherently unsafe.

That’s my two cents. Or, like, 27 cents maybe. I hope there is a way forward for trust between staff and members to be rebuilt, because I’ve really loved this forum for the last decade and I think it’s often one of the healthiest places I’ve enjoyed online.

 

[-Apples-]

Without trying to get into discussing another member’s ban, I think this is how the process works:

• If two users have the same opinions approved by the staff, yet one person is getting moderated for it while the other person is getting away with it, then the issue isn’t what they did but rather how they did it. If you were rude about stating your opinion or sharing your problems, like making accusations, spreading conspiracy theories, or sharing your opinions just to create chaos, then that’s going to get you in trouble.
• The staff judge based on their observations of the posts rather than how the poster or most users see the posts. If your post came off to be rude, yet you don’t see it as rude, then you might need to do some research or talk to someone else about why your post was rude.
• As the staff said, bans are serious business, as it takes the whole team to act upon it. If someone was getting banned for a while, and they haven’t done anything extreme, then it’s not just based on one or two offenses, but rather their entire history of offenses. If you continue to repeat the same behavior for years, and you show no signs of improving, then a more serious penalty may be needed.
• For stuff like sexual harassment and bigotry, they are by no means acceptable. However, it doesn’t make you any better than to start a fight or argue with these people. If someone engages in unacceptable behavior like this, then you need to report them. Starting or getting into an argument isn’t going to get them to change their views or behavior, and leaving them unreported is going to lead them into continuing this behavior. And if you do start an argument or participate in it, then you’ll create a conflict that will get out of control. And then, when the staff get involved, you’ll get in trouble too, not just the offender. Now banning them won’t change their behavior either (and if it did, it may change them for the worse), but it will ensure safety and comfort among the community.