Jump to content


This is a read only archive of the old forums
The new CBn forums are located at https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/

 
Photo

What constitutes banning members here?


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
17 replies to this topic

#1 Monique

Monique

    Midshipman

  • Crew
  • 94 posts
  • Location:USA

Posted 17 February 2004 - 04:52 AM

What exactly is the procedure around here for kicking people off the forums? Do you even have one? Is it for posting spam? Swearing?? Or it it just for having an opinion??? Do members get warnings, or are they just locked out and booted like BondzBK was? I recently found out someone disabled his account without so much as a warning to him, and for what??? Because he dared to express his views? Because he disagreed with how the staff handled the whole Brosnan rumor??

I find this really disturbing. I realize CBn isn't exactly a democracy, but it doesn't have to be a dictatorship either.

It seems whenever people have a strong opinion that isn't a popular one or if they dare to disagree with a staff member they are told "to just go away", or "why are you here?" Why the hell shouldn't he be here???? He's a Bond fan just like any of us, and has contributed a lot to these forums. He should be able to argue if he feels passionately about something. We all should. His article "Dear Eon" echoed many of our sentiments and should have shown what a loyal fan he truly is. Not to mention a talented screenwriter, so I will truly miss his insights. To treat him like some kid spamming the site was really unfair. If people want to fight here, let them fight..it's not like there is blood shed, or bullets flying. Why do mods always have to step in with their heavy handed scoldings and lock up every thread where it doesn't show them in a favorable light?? It seems there are just too many chiefs around here, and not enough indians. Do you guys just pick and choose what is tolerated and what isn't? There just doesn't seem to be much consistency other than the fact that there is favoritism, which is normal for sites like these. I'm not so much criticizing that as I am the fact that is seems to be an attitude of "love us or leave us", and that's what bothers me. Because lemme tell ya, not everybody loves you. So many people are afraid to speak up because they too are afraid of being ridiculed, ostricized, or banned. BondzBK even tried to point out that the nasty comments he received just further illustrated his point of how people are treated when they stand up to someone here. But it fell on deaf ears of someone trying to protect his bruised ego. Another case in point. The new member "MooMoo" just showed up out of nowhere arguing and getting people riled up on many threads, yet not one mod said a word to him to stop. Never asked him to back up what he was saying, or even identify what his position was to have such insider info. They accepted it as fact, much like the Brosnan fiasco, which I still agree was wrong, and irresponsible, but that isn't my point this time.

I do enjoy a great many members and reading the posts here, I have several friends that I would miss a lot if I too get banned for saying all of this, but it needed to be said. I would appreciate a warning if that is the case as I would like to clean out and save some of my private messages.

Maybe some of the people who agreed with me in private will back me up here, or maybe no one will. Maybe the 4 loyal CBners on every freaking thread will tell me as they did BondzBk to just leave with some snide remark like "don't let the server hit you on the way out.." (???) I don't really care. But I'm loyal too, and I stand up for people when they don't deserve to be mistreated.

Having said that, I just think it's only fair that he be reinstated. I'm bringing this to the public forum rather than a private message because I think the members should be aware of what goes on and why people disappear.

Thanks for listening.

Edited by Monique, 17 February 2004 - 06:30 AM.


#2 Tarl_Cabot

Tarl_Cabot

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 10505 posts
  • Location:The Galaxy of Pleasure

Posted 17 February 2004 - 05:03 AM

Fight the power. :)



Seriously, I have no idea what you're talking about but I did read his Dear EON letter and it was pretty cool. I'm one of the bitter DAD bashers so I agreed with 100% of it. But there's been a lot of wining lately and I'm sure someone felt like doing a Blofeld on his *** for a good reason...

As for the site: I realize it's a "Family" site but shouldn't our naughtiness be the equal to the content of the films? Why do we get warned for using laguage that is used in Bond films? Is there a G-rated version of Bond that "families" are watching? :)

#3 Qwerty

Qwerty

    Commander RNVR

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 85605 posts
  • Location:New York / Pennsylvania

Posted 17 February 2004 - 05:06 AM

Completely understand Monique, but didn't BondzBK also disagree with the staff as well and didn't just get told straight off to 'go away'?

As for the launguage censoring, I feel it works okay for this site, there's only a select few words that actually get censored, and it's not really a problem, in my opinion at least.

#4 Tarl_Cabot

Tarl_Cabot

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 10505 posts
  • Location:The Galaxy of Pleasure

Posted 17 February 2004 - 05:12 AM

The thing is, mild swearing-ie no F-bombs gets censored but Bond shooting people in the head does not. Hola?

#5 Qwerty

Qwerty

    Commander RNVR

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 85605 posts
  • Location:New York / Pennsylvania

Posted 17 February 2004 - 05:17 AM

The thing is, mild swearing-ie no F-bombs gets censored but Bond shooting people in the head does not. Hola?

Well yeah, but how do you exactly censor the actions Bond does in posts on CBn?

(I'm not being rude at all, I just don't quite understand.) :)

#6 Tarl_Cabot

Tarl_Cabot

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 10505 posts
  • Location:The Galaxy of Pleasure

Posted 17 February 2004 - 05:29 AM

The point is the site is a fan site of an action hero franchise and our hero does a bloody good deal of violence! We watch these films obviously...so if a bond film is ok for the kiddies than why is some mild cursing on CBn not ok? You can't say you love Bond but reject violence, sexuality,mild profanity...etc. You either like Bond or you don't like bond. I think the policy should designed to keep the forums civil; I like a good debate but I think we should be polite, respectful and mature.



Anyway, I love the site. Love live CBn! :)

#7 Qwerty

Qwerty

    Commander RNVR

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 85605 posts
  • Location:New York / Pennsylvania

Posted 17 February 2004 - 05:37 AM

The point is the site is a fan site of an action hero franchise and our hero does a bloody good deal of violence! We watch these films obviously...so if a bond film is ok for the kiddies than why is some mild cursing on CBn not ok? You can't say you love Bond but reject violence, sexuality,mild profanity...etc. You either like Bond or you don't like bond. I think the policy should designed to keep the forums civil; I like a good debate but I think we should be polite, respectful and mature.



Anyway, I love the site. Love live CBn! :)

Ah yes, now I understand.

Amen! :)

#8 brendan007

brendan007

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1512 posts
  • Location:Gold Coast, Australia

Posted 17 February 2004 - 09:14 AM

I'm sure they had good reason to give bondzbk the boot. I doubt it was for his opinions, i agreed with quite a few of them, as im sure a lot of people did. We just expressed ourselves without being rude and offensive i guess.

#9 SnakeEyes

SnakeEyes

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1946 posts
  • Location:Yorkshire, England

Posted 17 February 2004 - 09:41 AM

I got a warning for saying 'pussy' once.

Pussy.

Oops! :)

Really I think censorship is a load of rubbish, 'cos sometimes a 4 letter word is usefull and, frankly, mature people can deal with it. Just like mature people can moderate themselves into not using it. Preventative measures don't work, because it creates a 'fight the system' attitude in people. Where as responsive 'kicking people who overuse bad language' would let people feel more 'free' whilst still keeping the peace.

My 2 units of local currency anyway.

#10 Loomis

Loomis

    Commander CMG

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 21862 posts

Posted 17 February 2004 - 09:43 AM

I'm sure they had good reason to give bondzbk the boot. I doubt it was for his opinions, i agreed with quite a few of them, as im sure a lot of people did. We just expressed ourselves without being rude and offensive i guess.

Exactly. It wasn't what BondzBK said so much as the way he said it. The concept of disagreeing civilly seemed alien to him: if you took issue with his opinions, or if he took issue with yours, he appeared to take it personally and would make rude, sarcastic replies designed to insult and belittle.

#11 Dunph

Dunph

    Commander RNVR

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3826 posts
  • Location:Leeds, UK

Posted 17 February 2004 - 10:25 AM

We all discussed the banning of BondzBK, we have no problem with people expressing their ideas, regardless whether they're contrary to what we believe, we're not a bloody dictatorship. We got fed up with his constant insults and put downs of members to get his point across, it started to become a regular occurrance with him, and when it becomes one with anyone, regardless of their opinions, we will ban them, pure and simple, no matter if it's Qwerty, Loomis or even yourself, if you continue to break the rules we set in place then we ban you. simple.

If you don't agree with our actions on the main page, then by all means speak your mind, I don't think it's fair to start jumping to conclusions as to our reasons for banning a member, for BondzBK they were many and varied, but censorship was not one of them.

#12 Atticus17F

Atticus17F

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 715 posts
  • Location:Manchester

Posted 17 February 2004 - 10:27 AM

There's a difference between disagreeing with someone and haranguing them. I thought the staff answered all BondzBK's initial questions patiently and politely but, for some reason, he felt it necessary to persistently retaliate with vitriol.

Okay, Moomoo may be guilty of repetition but none of his posts were designed to offend. You'd think a "talented writer" like BondzBK would be able to get his point across without resorting to petty insults.

#13 Simon

Simon

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5884 posts
  • Location:England

Posted 17 February 2004 - 12:38 PM

I think the majority of the staff members have a good handle on moderating this site. It's all good clean wholesome fun and that's their mantra.

I've been stampled on a couple of times, probably correctly, for having a crack at other members' comments and even trying to get around the censorship deal with words made up of dollar signs and 1s for caca related words.

Where it might get out of hand is when the kiddiwinks with CBn signatures get enthusiastic with their adolescent power but like with most things, if I don't like it, I have the freedom to leave.

Like my other posts along these lines, it's their site and they can do with it what they like. I stand firm by that.

#14 The Admiral

The Admiral

    Admiral

  • The Admiralty
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 7777 posts
  • Location:United Kingdom

Posted 17 February 2004 - 01:46 PM

We'll be publishing a forum policy/guidelines soon.

#15 Johnboy007

Johnboy007

    Commander CMG

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 6990 posts
  • Location:Washington, D.C.

Posted 17 February 2004 - 07:57 PM

He always seemed just plain rude to me.

#16 Monique

Monique

    Midshipman

  • Crew
  • 94 posts
  • Location:USA

Posted 17 February 2004 - 08:51 PM

Well DunphBoy, I disagree with you, but that's pretty apparent. It's funny you helped make the decison, but you didn't even have any interaction with him on any of those threads in question. I guess I'm just wondering why he didn't get a warning first.

Edited by Monique, 17 February 2004 - 08:52 PM.


#17 License To Kill

License To Kill

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1556 posts
  • Location:Washington D.C.

Posted 17 February 2004 - 08:55 PM

Excuse me but, why did he get banned?

#18 The Admiral

The Admiral

    Admiral

  • The Admiralty
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 7777 posts
  • Location:United Kingdom

Posted 18 February 2004 - 02:57 PM

For the time being, you can refer to our Terms of Use.

About half way down the page you'll see the Forums area.

I'll post it in here for ease:

As a derivative of CommanderBond.net