as per the last time i stepped in to contribute, a friend who likes to talk about TBT happenstances (from the mundane to not) past my having quit mentioned this situation. i had to log in to retrieve a message anyway, so i wanted to say something.
most of what i think i could say has already
been said by other users - lumi, potato, saylor, etc., so there's no need to repeat what has already been noted. however, there is one thing i would like to point out.
We have a long-standing policy of protecting the anonymity of members, both those who report improper behavior and those who we take action against based on those reports. Are we always perfect at it? No, but we really do try. When you speak about another member's ban, you are sharing information that can be linked back to that person. Our goal in requesting you not to discuss it is not about trying to sweep things under the rug or avoid accountability; it's about protecting the privacy of all members involved in the situation.
We understand that transparency and honesty are generally good things. It may be hard to imagine any negative interpretation of them. But I'd like to ask you to put yourself in someone else's shoes for a minute. If you had done something that resulted in a ban, would you want other members discussing it behind your back when you couldn't even defend yourself? Would you want staff sharing the details with the entire forum?
Looking at it from the other angle, if you reported someone and the action taken against that person caused this type of emotionally-charged discussion, would you feel comfortable with us sharing the list of grievances that led us down that path? Doing so would likely put a spotlight on the reporting parties, which could make them targets for harassment by anyone who disagrees.
I also want to state that due to our stance on privacy, most of you would never know if we took action against another member. Since I don't know every scenario that has been referred to in these posts, I can't say whether I feel we acted appropriately on all of them. Odds are we could have done better in many cases. We certainly could have at least acknowledged your report. And that was one of the things we mentioned early on in this thread that we would be working on. I know we still have a long way to go, but we're trying to improve.
In the end, there are so many factors that come into play with these decisions. We could detail our entire thought process, but it would expose others who have been promised anonymity, it would bring to light statements that have been removed or were provided in private conversations. This is why Jeremy said our hands are tied. We cannot be fully transparent with all of you without betraying the trust of the members who reached out to us.
I hope you can understand our position on that.
while, in theory, i understand this position and do think it is a good mindset to want to respect the privacy of your users, this mindset has already long been violated ever since the moment Jeremy posted about the banned user having received several complaints against him several pages back. not only does this violate the privacy of those who allegedly came forward, but it also violates the idea of respect this privacy statement intends to convey. even if it was at the time a post made in the heat of the moment out of frustration (which, while i do understand as everyone is only human, i still think it was a very inappropriate and unprofessional response for the
forum's owner), it violated any sense of privacy
and respect towards all users involved and so to claim privacy now that the user who was targeted has been banned is honestly a disingenuous move on staff's part, no matter the intent. you cannot argue that users who have been promised anonymity will not be respected were more detail to be provided when they have
already had this happen by Jeremy's initial slip of the tongue.
so i do not think that, in this case, this is a fair position to request users to understand, as it circles back to the ever-present criticism of inconsistency in how staff handles its approach. even if there's acknowledgement that better could have been done, and there is improvement to be made, it doesn't really make the situation any better.
i think it's also worth noting that a close friend
of the banned user has spoken up and weighed in (and has publicly acknowledged herself as such so we all, no matter how distant from him, know the banned user's relationship with at least one person commenting) - i think if anyone has the right to comment on how the user in this case would respond to becoming a talking point... it's probably lumi, who's already said her piece in full. so while i understand the idea behind not wanting to air the business of those who are banned in
theory... and with this in mind... well, hasn't staff
already shared details involved, effectively? many of us can easily intuit who this is about and we've seen how they've been responded to in this thread alone. even if most of us don't have the full picture, we have enough based on that, i think.
event
