Moderator's Note

[Sandy Larsen]

Two or three members have recently implied in a couple of moderator-related threads that I might be penalizing members based on my personal beliefs or whims. That is a ridiculous notion.

But unfortunately, an untimely thing has happened that might appear to reinforce that idea. And that is that one of the persons involved in those two threads has just received a fairly stiff penalty. (Eight days of no posting.)

This is by sheer coincidence, doesn't involve either of the two threads, or any thread that I follow for that matter, and the penalty wasn't issued by me.

I just wanted to make that clear.

 

Now, this gives me an opportunity to explain a little about how the penalty system works.

When an infraction is reported, a moderator will determine if the infraction indeed did occur. If it did, the moderator will issue warning points to the person These warning points accumulate over time, but are slowly brought back to zero during a period of no or minor infractions from that person.

Another property of the penalty system is as follows: A smaller number of warning points will result in no or little penalty to the person. As an example, if a person uses profanity, he might be given a 5 point warning, which is minor and carries no penalty. If he does it again soon thereafter, he'll receive another 5 points, and his 10 accumulated point's will result in a one day suspension of posting rights.

So penalties are usually small. However, penalty severity rises exponentially, which can result in quite severe penalties for repeat offenders. Ten points results in a one day suspension. Twenty points get two days. Thirty points get four days. Forty points get eight days. Then 16 days, 32 days, 64 days, and so on.

Now, this may seem harsh, but a member has to behave quite badly in order to get the harsher penalties. Before we had this system in place, it is my understanding that things would just get out of hand with some member till the moderators finally had too much, at which point they simply banned the member... permanently or for some indeterminate period of time.

I believe this new system is much better for everybody, forum members and moderators alike. We no longer fret over whether banning a person is warranted. I know that I don't give it a second thought after issuing warning points to a member. After that the system is completely automatic.

From the member's perspective, if you just keep your nose clean for a couple weeks after being issued a penalty, you'll never have to worry about getting a harsher one.

 

[Pamela Brown]

Under the new rules, could it be possible for members who have been 'banned' to reapply for membership?

[Sandy Larsen]

I have just remove Ben's political post, as well as Williams response to it.

Ben complains too much... period.

In dozens of his posts he has found it necessary to refer to "Biden's snuff job" for no reason other than to say it. Lately he has included the Democratic Party in his politically biased rants. I often let his posts remain. But when his political jabs are in the title of a thread, or in the OP, or are excessive, I do remove them. Or I move the whole thread.

While it is true that sometimes a thread mentioning Trump is posted, it is almost always in response to one of Ben's political posts. I always treat those posts the same s Ben's.... whether it's leaving them alone, removing them, or moving the whole thread.

Ben has nothing of substance to complain about. Contemporary political posts are not allowed, period. That is a forum rule, not mine.

Having said that, I will allow a thread mentioning a contemporary political figure to remain if it is important enough and relevant to the JFKA case. For example, when Trump and Biden did what they did to the JFK Records Act. (I'm speaking for myself here, not all moderators.) But I will not allow that to give people like Ben license to take his political jabs whenever he pleases.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

6 hours ago, Pamela Brown said:

Under the new rules, could it be possible for members who have been 'banned' to reapply for membership?

 

Pamela,

Speaking for myself... if a former member asks to be reinstated, I will call for a vote among the admin staff on the matter. As a matter of fact, we had such a vote just a day or two ago.

I personally would like to see return researchers like Bart Kamp and Robert Prudhomme. (Those are just some names that popped into my head. There are many others whose ideas and research styles I miss. Though I'm sure that many of them left on their own.)

 

[Pamela Brown]

7 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Pamela,

Speaking for myself... if a former member asks to be reinstated, I will call for a vote among the admin staff on the matter. As a matter of fact, we had such a vote just a day or two ago.

I personally would like to see return researchers like Bart Kamp and Robert Prudhomme. (Those are just some names that popped into my head. There are many others whose ideas and research styles I miss. Though I'm sure that many of them left on their own.)

 

Thanks.  That's good to know...

[Pamela Brown]

I must admit I am a bit confused about what goes into banning and possible reinstatement.  Why is it necessary to 'vote' on someone being reinstated under the new rules? 

[Sandy Larsen]

13 hours ago, Pamela Brown said:

I must admit I am a bit confused about what goes into banning and possible reinstatement.  Why is it necessary to 'vote' on someone being reinstated under the new rules? 

 

We don't have new rules. We have a new way of penalizing for breaking the rules.

As for banning or reinstating a member, AFAIK that has always been done as a result of voting among the admin members. Highly consequential matters are always voted on. Not one admin has more "power" than another.

 

[Pamela Brown]

8 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

We don't have new rules. We have a new way of penalizing for breaking the rules.

As for banning or reinstating a member, AFAIK that has always been done as a result of voting among the admin members. Highly consequential matters are always voted on. Not one admin has more "power" than another.

 

Thank you for clarifying what is new.