the Policy of Banning Members

[Roger Odisio]

Yesterday, by way of explaining the delay in my response to Jeremy's post, I mentioned that I had been banned from posting on Thursday for 2 days. The ban was by personal note to me from Sandy.  No announcement was made to the group (more on the problem with that below).

 

Later in the day, Sandy brought it up himself, without mentioning my name: 

"I gave one guy a two-day suspension the other day for what I think most people consider quite offensive". His note to me was headlined "outrageous statements". What, the reader might ask,  did Odisio say that was so offensive and outrageous?

 

Here is Sandy's statement accompanying the ban notice: "for stating numerous times that the moderators have not explained the reason for moving threads, when in fact we have explained numerous times."  IOW, It's a fact that they have explained the reasons numerous times. The implication is undeniable:  I was lying when I claimed otherwise and therefore deserved a ban.

 

I had questioned the policy of moving threads and asked for an explanation.  Since all posts relevant to an understanding of the JFKA should be allowed (a statement that seems obvious to me), I had asserted that a threshold determination of *irrelevance* should be made before removing a thread from the forum, regardless of what other topic a thread also included (like politics).

 

Neither Sandy nor Mark argued against that assertion. There was no discussion. Instead Sandy said he had already explained the reasons threads were moved, but "Roger has refused to listen". I quickly responded that I had read everything that was said, but nothing offered was an adequate explanation, considering that information people here should be seeing was being removed from the forum.  IOW, my question was about the *adequacy of explanations offered, not about whether any had been offered.

 

That drew only a repeat that I simply refused to listen to the mods when they reasserted *the fact* that they had offered explanations for the moves.  The real question about adequacy was left unexamined.

 

It seems to me that Mark also indicated that the politics forum in EF was being shortchanged if the threads that discussed some political aspect were not moved there. I suggested, twice, that to the extent that was a problem, it could be solved by leaving the thread in JFKA, and copying it to the politics forum.  Again, no response. 

 

The stage was set for when the next time I mentioned the inadequacy of the policy of removing threads, the hammer of a ban could be lowered.  

 

They had turned a disagreement about the adequacy of their policy, that they had consistently declined to discuss, into an outrageous and an offensive "refusal to listen" to their claim of having explained the reasonableness of their policy. 

 

Needless to say, I find the claim in support of the ban to be without merit, absent further discussion by the mods.

 

Perhaps all of this could be cleared up if Sandy and Mark would explain why each thread they moved was irrelevant to an understanding of the JFKA. Or why relevance doesn't matter, at least to the extent I claim. 

 

In addition, while they're at it and in view of Sandy's remarks about what he said I did, I would like my name back.

 

Now a word about how the ban policy works, in case one of you runs afoul of the mods.  I was astonished at how it works.

 

No warning of a possible ban is given.  The note from Sandy said: Warning, you may not post again on EF for the 2 days. There was no warning that a ban is being considered to give the person I chance to respond. The ban is imposed without warning, despite what the note says. 

 

No response to the ban is permitted.  You must simply acknowledge receipt.  You will not be permitted to post again, your suspension will be extended, until you do acknowledge it.

 

No announcement of the ban or the reasons for it is made to the group.

 

Everything is done in secret via a personal message from the mods.  They have to explain nothing.  They allow no response to their actions.  They have no accountability. Members don't even know what has been done in their name.

 

Besides no posting, no contact with other members is permitted using info on EF.  If a member contacts you, you cannot reply to his message.

 

Effectively you are placed in solitary confinement within EF for the length of the ban. 

 

This is way too much power for any mod to have, not just the current mods.

 

Changes are needed, starting with, at a minimum:

 

*All bans must be announced by the mods to the group, including the reasons for the ban. 

 

*This will allow a discussion of the ban's efficacy.  A ban should not be given lightly.   Censorship of speech of any kind is repugnant, even more so that which is done in darkness.

 

*The banned person must be allowed to use the EF contact facility to discuss with other members what they think of the ban or the possibility of a ban.

 

* A warning should be given to the person for whom a ban is being considered, to allow that person to give his side of the story before the ban is imposed.  Once a ban is imposed and announced to the group, it becomes a matter for group discussion, if members are so inclined.

 

.

 

[Paul Cummings]

Take your issues directly to the moderators. It's really that simple. 

[Jonathan Cohen]

For once, I agree wholeheartedly with Roger !

[Roger Odisio]

1 hour ago, Paul Cummings said:

Take your issues directly to the moderators. It's really that simple. 

That's what I'm doing, Paul.  But the full group needs to be aware of the issues as well.

[David G. Healy]

3 hours ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

For once, I agree wholeheartedly with Roger !

of course you do.... whiners will be ....? "the devil made me do it?"  lol...

I haven't seen this many lone nuts tripping over their own bs in 20 years... when you can't control the medium, WHINE.... here's a better idea: start your own forum!

[Roger Odisio]

8 minutes ago, David G. Healy said:

of course you do.... whiners will be ....? "the devil made me do it?"  lol...

I haven't seen this many lone nuts tripping over their own bs in 20 years... when you can't control the medium, WHINE.... here's a better idea: start your own forum!

Do you think I'm a LN, David?  Do you have anything to say about what I said?

[W. Niederhut]

My suggestion is for the mods to set up a designated "Whining" board for these threads.

Out of deference to whiners, it could be called the "Customer Service" board.  🙄

Edited July 9, 2023 by W. Niederhut

[Benjamin Cole]

The moderators are, at times, immoderate. 

They appear to conflate earnest discussion of the RFK Jr. candidacy, and of the Biden snuff job on the JFK Records Act, with "MAGA talk." 

However, the EF-JFKA should try to be a neutral platform, welcoming the full range of political stripes, from MAGA to Marxist, Donk to 'Phants, lib to conserv. Libertarian too. 

I am puzzled that a post on the Biden snuff job was moved to the "MAGA v Mainstream" folder. 

As I say, that action appears to conflate criticism of the Biden snuff job with a MAGA position. 

I would hope any citizen, regardless of political affiliation, regards the Biden snuff job as entirely unacceptable, and reflecting base political cowardice. 

In Trump or Biden. 

[Roger Odisio]

My post about some problems with the forum's policy for banning members has already slid halfway down the second page.  Without a response from the moderators. 

[Benjamin Cole]

Perhaps we need more political diversity among the moderators. 

Put three Donks in a room, and then put three 'Phants in a room, and you will get widely different views on what is biased and what is not, what should be banned, or moved off of the main EF-JFKA board. 

Both groups will be 100% certain of their rectitude.  

The only answer is a balanced panel of moderators. Two Donks and two 'Phants, or some other mix. 

[Sandy Larsen]

46 minutes ago, Roger Odisio said:

My post about some problems with the forum's policy for banning members has already slid halfway down the second page.  Without a response from the moderators. 

 

This is a private forum Roger. And the admin team decides the rules. By vote, I might add.

Post here if you want. Hope to get what you want. But don't be surprised if you don't get what you want. Or if you don't get a response. PM an admin member if you want a response.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

26 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

The only answer is a balanced panel of moderators. Two Donks and two 'Phants, or some other mix. 

 

The movement of your threads has nothing to do with politics, Ben. As I've told you many times, it has to do with spamming in some cases, and with the topic being contemporary politics in other cases.

 

[Pat Speer]

16 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Perhaps we need more political diversity among the moderators. 

Put three Donks in a room, and then put three 'Phants in a room, and you will get widely different views on what is biased and what is not, what should be banned, or moved off of the main EF-JFKA board. 

Both groups will be 100% certain of their rectitude.  

The only answer is a balanced panel of moderators. Two Donks and two 'Phants, or some other mix. 

As a former moderator, who moderated the forum when it was much more argumentative than it is today, I can say that the moderators never asked nor knew each other's politics. There are certain kinds of behavior that are accepted and certain kinds that are not. Period. It has nothing to do with politics. People who yell and/or whine about others, who are madly in love with their opinions on this or that--whether it be Jews, the Deep State, this or that hoax, or this or that conspiracy, end up in the corner.

It's pretty much like kindergarten. 

Edited July 11, 2023 by Pat Speer

[Benjamin Cole]

1 minute ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

The movement of your threads has nothing to do with politics, Ben. As I've told you many times, it has to do with spamming in some cases, and with the topic being contemporary politics in other cases.

 

I will abide by your sentiments.

I still think a more-balanced panel of moderators is a good idea. 

You have expressed rather strong opinions about events and people who have views different than yours.

That is fine---opinions are opinions, and each to his own.  

Unfortunately we live in highly partisan times, and people are tribal. 

What you consider balanced and fair is not what a Trump supporter would consider balanced and fair. 

In any event, it is important not only to be un-biased, but to have the appearance of being unbiased. 

It appears to be unbalanced to have three strong adherents of the D-Party as moderators. 

 

[Benjamin Cole]

2 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

As a former moderator, who moderated the forum when it was much more argumentative than it is today, I can say that the moderators never asked nor knew each other's politics. There are certain kinds of behavior that are accepted and certain kinds that are not. Period. It has nothing to do with politics. People who yell and/or whine about others, who are madly in love with their opinions on this or that--whether it be Jews, the Deep State, this or that hoax, or this or that conspiracy, end up on the corner.

It's pretty much like kindergarten. 

Ha!

I have yet to meet anyone on this board who is not in madly in love with their own opinions or version of the JFKA, or for that matter, in their assessment of their own divine insights. (The circumspect Larry Hancock might be an exception. 

That is why a tribal balance is needed among moderators.