* * * JREF Forum Thread * * * -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Thread : LizardPeople Started at 18th May 2010 08:03 AM by geni Visit at http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=175828 -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 1] Author : geni Date : 18th May 2010 08:03 AM Thread Title : LizardPeople Hmm Suspended. Why? Closest I can find is this: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5861943&postcount=5 Which is only related to a single section of the forum and should have in any case expired. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 2] Author : UNLoVedRebel Date : 18th May 2010 04:25 PM What exactly is the complaint? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 3] Author : specious_reasons Date : 19th May 2010 02:45 AM One complaint would be that he was put under indefinite suspension, but there's no record of it. Sloppy bookkeeping by the JREF administration. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 4] Author : LashL Date : 19th May 2010 03:19 AM There are issues about the identity of the account holder and the account has been suspended until those issues are resolved, as is the standard procedure. The member was advised of this at the time that his/her account was suspended. Because of the nature of such suspensions, we rarely post a "Public Notice" about such suspensions. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 5] Author : geni Date : 19th May 2010 03:50 AM There are issues about the identity of the account holder and the account has been suspended until those issues are resolved, as is the standard procedure. The member was advised of this at the time that his/her account was suspended. Because of the nature of such suspensions, we rarely post a "Public Notice" about such suspensions. There is a slight lack of a justification for failing to post a public notice there. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 6] Author : Locknar Date : 19th May 2010 04:15 AM "Administrative Suspensions" (which is what this is) have been routinely used in the past (such as mentioned here: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5410293&postcount=36) and are hardly new. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 7] Author : geni Date : 19th May 2010 07:50 AM "Administrative Suspensions" (which is what this is) have been routinely used in the past (such as mentioned here: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5410293&postcount=36) and are hardly new. Appeal to antiquity is a logical fallacy. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 8] Author : Mojo Date : 19th May 2010 08:13 AM Stating that there is a precedent is not necessarily an appeal to antiquity. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 9] Author : Metullus Date : 19th May 2010 09:07 AM Stating that there is a precedent is not necessarily an appeal to antiquity.Plus that never helped me when I argued with my parents... -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 10] Author : gentlehorse Date : 19th May 2010 09:07 AM Stating that there is a precedent is not necessarily an appeal to antiquity. Complainant: There's no public record of the suspension. Mod: That's because it was an administrative suspension. Complainant: How does that justify the lack of a public record of the event? Mod: It's a matter of routine; this is nothing new. In this case I have to agree with geni: Appeal to Antiquity/Tradition. We can’t learn anything about the justification of a practice just by considering how old it is. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 11] Author : rjh01 Date : 19th May 2010 11:40 AM Q. Is there any requirement that the admins need to put "administrative suspension" in public notices? Or for that matter anything at all? If you want you can replace requirement with rule in the above question. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 12] Author : gentlehorse Date : 19th May 2010 01:12 PM Q. Is there any requirement that the admins need to put "administrative suspension" in public notices? Or for that matter anything at all? Sort'a brings Cowslip's Warren to mind-- Nobody is to mention that another one disappeared. Everything's fine. Don't talk about it. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 13] Author : Mojo Date : 19th May 2010 06:18 PM Complainant: There's no public record of the suspension. Mod: That's because it was an administrative suspension. Complainant: How does that justify the lack of a public record of the event? Mod: It's a matter of routine; this is nothing new. In this case I have to agree with geni: Appeal to Antiquity/Tradition. Nope, its a non sequitur. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 14] Author : Klimax Date : 19th May 2010 06:43 PM Sort'a brings Cowslip's Warren to mind-- Nobody is to mention that another one disappeared. Everything's fine. Don't talk about it. ??? You can mention somebody is suspended (especialy when there are psoters waiting for a reply...),you can even ask. Doesn't match. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 15] Author : specious_reasons Date : 20th May 2010 01:06 AM Q. Is there any requirement that the admins need to put "administrative suspension" in public notices? Or for that matter anything at all? If you want you can replace requirement with rule in the above question. I had thought that the public notices section was a way of keeping public scrutiny on moderator actions - to help ensure transparency and fairness in enforcement of the rules. If some actions are exempt or simply ignored, how is transparency maintained? If the public notices section is just provided as informational in case you're wondering why the troll you've been feeding suddenly disappeared, then this complaint is invalid. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 16] Author : Dancing David Date : 20th May 2010 06:04 AM I had thought that the public notices section was a way of keeping public scrutiny on moderator actions - to help ensure transparency and fairness in enforcement of the rules. If some actions are exempt or simply ignored, how is transparency maintained? If the public notices section is just provided as informational in case you're wondering why the troll you've been feeding suddenly disappeared, then this complaint is invalid. Where was what rule exempt or ignored? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 17] Author : specious_reasons Date : 20th May 2010 08:48 AM Where was what rule exempt or ignored? I didn't say rules were ignored. No rules were ignored, unless it's part of the rules to post public announcements. I haven't bothered to look to see if this is actually required. However, I happen to know that a user was banned today, because it was posted in the "Public notices" section. Another person was suspended on the 14th - because it was posted in the same section. I don't see anything about LizardPeople.... why? Because the person who suspended his account chose not to post the fact in the "Public Notices" section. An action which seems to be standard operating procedure in some circumstances is not performed in another. I assumed because it's either not "required" by any of the mod-teams's standards in the case, or it was just ignored for whatever reason. Your question evades the point I was trying to make. I thought the purpose for making these events public was to help ensure public oversight of moderation actions. I thought it would be obvious that public oversight is hampered if some actions are not published. People can correct me if I'm wrong. If that's not the point of the "Public Notices" section then there's nothing else to discuss, AFAIK. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 18] Author : Foolmewunz Date : 20th May 2010 09:10 AM I know - it's in "Complaints", so it's got to have a whole discussion of What Rule was misinterpreted or broken..... But.... Can't we have these DISCUSSIONS without everyone picking sides and circling the wagons?*1 Seems to me that this situation arises often enough that maybe there ought to be some thought given to a more transparent method of handling. It's no one's business as to the exact nature of the administrative problem, really. But a different term for Administrative Suspension would seem to be a good solution. Oh, wait. There is a term. Administrative Suspension. If that's freely used in the mods tree house, why not make it a transparent category and end this particular recurring agenda item? *Dang, now I used a question mark. This ought to be in Questions. 1. Crap! I'm making a suggestion. Now I need to go and put it in Suggestions. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 19] Author : Darth Rotor Date : 27th May 2010 04:41 AM I know - it's in "Complaints", so it's got to have a whole discussion of What Rule was misinterpreted or broken..... But.... Can't we have these DISCUSSIONS without everyone picking sides and circling the wagons?*1 Seems to me that this situation arises often enough that maybe there ought to be some thought given to a more transparent method of handling. It's no one's business as to the exact nature of the administrative problem, really. But a different term for Administrative Suspension would seem to be a good solution. Oh, wait. There is a term. Administrative Suspension. If that's freely used in the mods tree house, why not make it a transparent category and end this particular recurring agenda item? *Dang, now I used a question mark. This ought to be in Questions. 1. Crap! I'm making a suggestion. Now I need to go and put it in Suggestions. But if you C & P this post to the other sub fora, might not you get an infraction for spamming? :eek: -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 20] Author : Tricky Date : 27th May 2010 04:56 AM [not as mod] I think it is unnecessarily punative to put someone in the public penalty box for something trivial. Having incorrect or unverified personal information is not worth plastering someone's name on the billboards for. The member is activated as soon as they provide the information. If the person chooses to not provide that information, then it is effectively no different than if someone simply stops posting. We certainly don't get any notice of that. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 21] Author : Dancing David Date : 27th May 2010 05:02 AM I didn't say rules were ignored. No rules were ignored, unless it's part of the rules to post public announcements. I haven't bothered to look to see if this is actually required. However, I happen to know that a user was banned today, because it was posted in the "Public notices" section. Another person was suspended on the 14th - because it was posted in the same section. I don't see anything about LizardPeople.... why? Because the person who suspended his account chose not to post the fact in the "Public Notices" section. An action which seems to be standard operating procedure in some circumstances is not performed in another. I assumed because it's either not "required" by any of the mod-teams's standards in the case, or it was just ignored for whatever reason. Your question evades the point I was trying to make. I thought the purpose for making these events public was to help ensure public oversight of moderation actions. I thought it would be obvious that public oversight is hampered if some actions are not published. People can correct me if I'm wrong. If that's not the point of the "Public Notices" section then there's nothing else to discuss, AFAIK. My point was just that, people are people, so it may have been an oversight or it could have been part of an investigation. Now this is speculation "I thought the purpose for making these events public was to help ensure public oversight of moderation actions. I thought it would be obvious that public oversight is hampered if some actions are not published. " There is no public oversight here, there is oversight by the JREF and their designated agants. :) I do think you should ask about the general idea in the 'Questions' area! It would probably get a response. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 22] Author : geni Date : 28th May 2010 04:41 PM [not as mod] I think it is unnecessarily punative to put someone in the public penalty box for something trivial. That it somewhat shields the mods from people finding out what is going on is of course completely irrelivant. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 23] Author : Tricky Date : 28th May 2010 10:29 PM That it somewhat shields the mods from people finding out what is going on is of course completely irrelivant. Perhaps it does sound that way, but I don't think that all the members have a "right to know" if a person has been asked to verify their personal details. That sounds like a confidential matter to me. (Again, "Not as mod".) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 24] Author : UncaYimmy Date : 29th May 2010 03:54 PM Perhaps it does sound that way, but I don't think that all the members have a "right to know" if a person has been asked to verify their personal details. That sounds like a confidential matter to me. (Again, "Not as mod".) If you assume that most people answer honestly, is it confidential that we "know" that everyone not asked to verify their information has answered honestly? I don't really find this to be a confidential thing. Ostensibly the JREF wants to know this information in case the JREF is libeled. Well, we members can be libeled and threatened as well. I'm not a lawyer, but as I understand it the JREF could be compelled to reveal the registration information in the case of a libel suit. In the case of criminal threats, it's probably even easier to get. On top of that some of us may have had personal dealings with the member such as requests for financial assistance or wanting to get together for a drink. If the member has possibly been dishonest with the JREF, shouldn't we be notified as well? I don't see posting a notice as punitive or as a confidentiality issue. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 25] Author : Foolmewunz Date : 1st June 2010 08:19 PM [not as mod] I think it is unnecessarily punative to put someone in the public penalty box for something trivial. Having incorrect or unverified personal information is not worth plastering someone's name on the billboards for. The member is activated as soon as they provide the information. If the person chooses to not provide that information, then it is effectively no different than if someone simply stops posting. We certainly don't get any notice of that. So? Suspending their account and having UncaYimmy and RJH and Akhenaten and Thunder and I ask, "Where'd he go? Betcha it as PDOH, again! Naah, it was Jerome or Mark!" isn't calling attention to that person? Seriously, I see where you're coming from and it sounds noble - on the surface. But, say,.... why not simply NOT SUSPEND them while the details are being looked into? Is there expensive silver lying around that they could steal in 24/48 hours? They gonna scratch Randi's car? Truly - what harm would it have done to leave one of the evil-doers and defrauders of great things skeptcial on the forums for another day or so? You can have your enquiries in private, no one needs to be the wiser and then, like other autocracies, you can have the execution in the public square, later. If they don't respond within 48/72 hours to PM and email, then they're gone. Pretty painless and it takes away the entertainment factor, all around. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 26] Author : Tricky Date : 1st June 2010 11:37 PM [not as mod] Okay, you've convinced me. I was wrong. All suspensions should be announced, or at least, Foolmewunz's plan should be given a try. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 27] Author : zooterkin Date : 2nd June 2010 01:06 AM [not as mod] Okay, you've convinced me. I was wrong. All suspensions should be announced, or at least, Foolmewunz's plan should be given a try. When you say 'all suspensions', does that include suspensions from sub-forums, such as FM? For the record, I agree with Foolmewunz's reasoning regarding administrative suspensions; we can all see that someone has been suspended, and there may be more speculation if nothing is said officially rather than a simple announcement which doesn't need to go into details. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 28] Author : rjh01 Date : 2nd June 2010 07:01 AM When you say 'all suspensions', does that include suspensions from sub-forums, such as FM? Apparently. See http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=177004 See also FM Suspensions (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=176873) where the issue is being discussed. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 29] Author : Foolmewunz Date : 2nd June 2010 08:31 AM [not as mod] Okay, you've convinced me. I was wrong. All suspensions should be announced, or at least, Foolmewunz's plan should be given a try. Sheesh! Yóu're not really cut out for this thick-skinned autocratic dictator stuff, are you? ;) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 30] Author : Tricky Date : 2nd June 2010 09:58 AM Sheesh! Yóu're not really cut out for this thick-skinned autocratic dictator stuff, are you? ;) I guess I'm not a "true skeptic", otherwise I wouldn't let people's arguments and evidence convince me to change my mind. That is how skepticism works, right? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Downloaded from JREF Forum (http://forums.randi.org) at 5th June 2010 04:25 PM.