Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Recommended Posts

Frank,

 

There can be a number of punishments, based on the offense (which would be up to the moderators/WebAdmin), This is from another website I belong to, and could serve as a sample:

 

The moderating staff is changing the way that we handle infractions to a Progressive Warning System. We used to initially send out a friendly PM, explaining 'you can't do that'... and get more stern from there.

 

 

Here is the new 'Warning System':

This is a point based system --- the worse the infraction, the more points you will accrue

1st offense: Warning message sent.

 

This warning will often be exactly that... a warning. You will typically not receive any points for your first offense. This is subjective, however -- if your infraction is bad enough, you may receive your first 'point' with this initial warning (BTW, points are bad). Keep in mind, warnings are like 'fix-it tickets'. There isn't anything being done about the problem, we are simply telling you it's time to calm down. If you choose not to listen, however, you may find yourself progressing down the list.

Second offense: Point added and/or posting privledges suspended.

 

If your first infraction was a warning, your second will result in a 'one point infraction'... but if your first warning was something that merrited a point, your second infraction will result in a short suspension (usually 1-7 days). This is time for you to cool off, and get things back into perspective. This is not 'life and death'... it's a format war. Calm down.

Third offense: Suspension from the site.

 

If you receive a third infraction, you will be suspended from the site, typically for a longer period of time (7-30 days).

Fourth offense: Banning from this site.

 

Our goal is to help you correct the problem before you get to this point.

 

There are a few items that will receive an instant 1 week (or more) suspension from the site. These include, but are not limited to:

Hate speech of any kind (be it race, sexual preference, or gender).

 

Attacking a moderator.

 

Willful, and flagrant disregard for other members.

 

Intimidation or even hints of physical violence (example: "why don't you come over to my house and say that to me in person, if you're man enough") This includes attacks made via PM.

 

 

In summary:

1st minor offense: Warning message sent.

 

2nd offense (or first major offense): Point added and/or posting privledges suspended.

 

3rd offense: Temporary suspension from the site.

 

4th offense: Permanent Ban from the site.

 

 

Points will accrue on a rolling 180 day period. What does that mean? It means that if you receive an infraction, you will be 'on watch' for 6 months. If you are good for 179 days, and then make a mistake... the 6 months start all over again.

 

*Sock-puppet policy:*

It is currently against the rules for members of this site to misrepresent themselves as another member. We are making changes to our discipline policy to ensure that this does not become a problem.

 

*General Forum Content: If a member is caught misrepresenting themselves as another poster (a sock-puppet), depending on the circumstances, he/she will be punished up to and including being permamanently banned.*

 

This offense includes:

Creating multiple accounts to make it appear that more people share your point of view. (this should be modified because here on the TCM board, the troll has created screenames and argues with the other just for fun)

 

Creating a second... third... or more account to avoid receiving multiple infraction points.

 

Smackdown Area: Using a sock-puppet in the smackdown area, simply as a means to break the 'Smackdown Area Specific Rules' (attacking other members intentionally).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good day to you, FilmLover -- I greatly appreciate your concern for the

community. You have brought forth many examples as to how we, as a community,

can combat banned members from returning to continue their trolling and cruel deception.

 

What I think we, as a community, must do first is decide if we are all on the same

page. Where do we stand as a COMMUNITY? This community is made up of old and new,

and we need to come together on this serious issue.

 

I also believe the moderators must also share their opinion on if a banned member

should be allowed to return.

 

So, if I may kindly ask, do you have a vote for us?

 

If we can get this wonderful community to vote on this issue, then we can turn our attention

to making sure such an issue is resolved. But we need to hear from the community.

Link to post
Share on other sites

*Should banned members of this board remained banned from this board, thus not*

*allowing them to return under a "new" name(s)?*

 

This delegate from the great Commonwealth of Virginia votes an emphatic yes!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Frank, this not about a vote. _First off, what would stop the troll with his many identities from voting against the modifications or banning?_

 

A vote is not being called for. What is being called for from the WebAdmin and the Moderators is to implement a "one screenname per human being" policy.

 

That is the priority here.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone who is a member on this board is allowed to vote. I want to hear from the

community on banned members being allowed to return to this board as a "new"

member.

 

Do you wish to abstain? Whatever your decision, I fully respect it.

 

YEA on banned members remaining banned:

 

Bronxgirl48 (FL)

CineMaven (NY)

FrankGrimes (PA)

JackFavell (CT)

johnm001 (PA)

molo14 (VA)

 

NAY on banned members remaining banned:

 

Awaiting our first cast vote.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Frank Grimes....

 

Just a thought, but perhaps SURVEY might be a better choice of words than VOTE... since a vote requires the willingness of those in power to recognize the outcome of the vote... but I digress....

 

And PS... if there WERE such a thing as voting to be allowed on this site... it would also be a "given' that in order to protect the voting process we should adopt a one PERSON one vote policy... (notice... there IS a difference between the word PERSON and the term "screen name" or "user identity.

 

At any rate... just to give a voice from the midwest(since you have yet to hear from anyone in a "fly over state...ha) .... if there ARE going to be multiple identities allowed on this board... then at the very least... if ONE of those identities is banned or removed from the board by the administrators because of serious violation to the code of conduct, then it would stand to reason that ALL of that same individual's identities also be removed.

 

So with that being said... then my official "vote' (if there really COULD be such a thing as voting) would have to be a resounding yes...

 

A voice from Missouri has spoken. And I thank you.

 

Message was edited by: rohanaka... to add the words "A voice from" to Missouri... because NEVER in a gazillion years would I want anyone to be able to say that I think I speak for the ENTIRE state.... Thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not abstaining. I'm saying the offense must be looked at. It would be too easy to ban permanently based on a "once banned, always banned" policy. First off, define "banned." A person could be suspended for a period of two weeks for losing their temper. Heaven knows, in my battles with the troll, I have lost mine. Suppose something I said caused me to be suspended for a short punishment period (which, to the very best of my memory, I never have) three years ago. You might call that a ban. So, if a rule came into place that said, flat out, "If you've been banned once, you are banned permanently." Couldn't that then eliminate from the board a lot of good, respected, and long-standing members here? The troll would love that, Frank, especially since the troll loves to go back through old, old posts. He could say, for example, "Hey, CineMaven was banned once. So she is banned permanently under the new rule. Ban her for good now." Or me or you?

 

There have to varying levels of punishment. See the listing below a few posts down for possible recommendations.

 

Besides, I don't recall the mods or the WebAdmin giving us a vote here.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, Rohanaka -- Just a thought, but perhaps SURVEY might be a better

choice of words than VOTE... since a vote requires the willingness of those in power

to recognize the outcome of the vote... but I digress.

 

True, but for me, this is a vote. I want to know where the community stands on the issue.

Should a banned member be permitted back on the board as a "new" member(S)?

I believe this COMMUNITY needs to let the Mods know what we think and how we feel in

the OPEN. If they wish to place the COMMUNITY on "Ignore," that will be their choice.

 

And PS... if there WERE such a thing as voting to be allowed on this site... it would

also be a "given' that in order to protect the voting process we should adopt a one

PERSON one vote policy... (notice... there IS a difference between the word PERSON

and the term "screen name" or "user identity.

 

EVERY member can vote. We need to know where this COMMUNITY stands on the

issue of allowing banned members to return to the board as a "new" member(S). We

need to know what the "old" members and new members think about this issue. All

voices need to be heard. I want to hear from "vets" like JakeHolman, TikiSoo, and

visualfeast and "newbies" like route66, FordyGuns, and The Mad Hatter. All votes matter.

 

Thank you for voting.

 

Hey, FilmLover -- If TCM Web Admin permanently bans someone, including

myself, we are to be gone. I should not be allowed to return the next minute as

"GrimeyFrank."

 

I deeply care about this message board. Maybe I care about it more than those

in power, I'm not sure. But if they ban me, I must abide by their wishes. I'm at their

mercy.

 

Maybe the voice of a community is to always fall on deaf ears. Maybe that's our

fate. But I still want to hear what the community thinks. I really don't know where we

stand as a community. If the community feels banned members should be allowed to

return as a "new" member, then so be it. That will be the choice of the community. But

we need to hear it. I think the Mods need to hear it, too.

 

You are a valued member of this community no matter what your choice, FilmLover.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I see your point, and I know you were not asking me but if a member is suspended for two weeks then that would be a "suspension" not a ban. The word ban should mean "permanently prohibited". This is an extreme action I know, but some members have been banned in the past and simply come back quickly under new posting names.

 

I thought you posted some good ideas about setting up guidelines for members that could be enacted.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Do I believe that the troll should be PERMANENTLY banned? To that I do say Yes.

 

So are you saying you vote "yes" to my question?

 

I want to ask, are you saying each screenname on the board is counted as one

Member?

 

Yes.

 

Let's just say, for the sake of argument, that in that latter list of 10 names, there

were one or more of those screennames belonging to the the troll. Do you count

that as 10 members?

 

Yes. I'm not here to accuse anyone on the board of purposely deceiving others on this

board. Just the thought of someone doing this sickens me. I don't know why anyone

would wish to do this.

 

Every username is allowed one vote. This board has always been very inclusive. A vet

like Dobbsy gets a vote and a newbie like The Maltese Falcon gets a vote.

 

Should banned members of this board remained banned from this board, thus not

allowing them to return under a "new" name(s)?

 

YEA on banned members remaining banned:

 

Bronxgirl48 (FL)

CineMaven (NY)

FrankGrimes (PA)

JackFavell (CT)

johnm001 (PA)

MissGoddess (NY)

molo14 (VA)

mongo (FL)

rohanaka (MO)

 

NAY on banned members remaining banned:

 

Awaiting our first cast vote.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just so that there are no questions or problems with my answering Franks very good intentioned questions here is what I have to say (not that anyone really cares)

 

 

*Do I believe that the troll should be PERMANENTLY banned?*

 

YES, ALL OF THEM. ASAP.

 

*Each screenname on the board is counted as one Member?*

 

YES. As I have said before, I can not understand why anyone can not do with just one username.

 

*Let's just say, for the sake of argument, that in that latter list of 10 names, there

were one or more of those screennames belonging to the the troll. Do you count

that as 10 members?*

 

YES. In fact from what I have learned recently some of these people ARE just one or two posters. How weird and sad is that?

 

 

*Should banned members of this board remained banned from this board, thus not

allowing them to return under a "new" name(s)?*

 

YES. If we can send a man to the moon and return him safely to the Earth, then by God we should be able to figure out a way to find out who these posters are.

 

Fxreyman

 

Message was edited by: fxreyman

Link to post
Share on other sites

>Should banned members of this board remained banned from this board, thus not

>allowing them to return under a "new" name(s)?

 

Hi Frank,

 

Let me run by you a couple of quick points and then I will cast my vote.

 

I did read the code of conduct, even though in a cursory fashion, and I did not see where it is prohibited for someone to use multiple names.

 

I did read something about harassment and that would seem to me to include stalking.

 

Also, the person or persons banned might have appealed the decision to have him banned and won his case and the TCM administrators reinstated him.

 

We don't know?

 

I have been banned from two sites and one of those sites is a very conservative site where I upset some Fred Thompson supporters during the Republican primary season and, I can promise you, I can't get back on that site.

 

How can someone who is banned get back on the site unless he changes his internet provider?

 

I use At&T high speed. I admit I am no computer whiz. It's all I can do to turn it on and off.

 

Yes, I vote a person, once banned, should not be allowed back on a site unless that decision is over-ruled by management.

 

From The Great Lone Star State of Texas.

Link to post
Share on other sites

:

*Should banned members of this board remained banned from this board, thus not allowing them to return under a "new" name(s)?*

 

As delegate of the great state of California and one of those veteran voices you are requesting to vote:

 

I vote YEA!

 

*Should there be a one person/one screen name policy:*

 

I vote YEA!

Link to post
Share on other sites

No one asked me about banning, but I'm not necessarily in favor of it because I've been banned from Television Without Pity for what I felt were minor infractions. They are really strict over there--my last post there was asking a question that had been answered on a previous page and they have a strict "read the last 15 pages before you ask a question" clause. Another infraction was due to telling someone not to give up on a TV program because I felt that the next year was going to be a good one for the show--that sort of thing. Anyway, nothing I did was very bad but I didn't follow their guidelines so I knew what would happen. (BTW, all of us here would definitely be gone from there except maybe Lynn.) Once they banned me, I tried to sign up under my mother's IP address & e-mail, but since I'd posted from her house on occasion (different city & state), I wasn't able to do it because they had blocked her IP address as well. That's their perogative, of course, but I would hate to see that happen here. Of course, I haven't been the subject of any off board stalking except from that person who like Donny Osmond, and I figured that person just has mental problems, so I ignore them now. It's not good for people to change names, but it get figured out eventually (even I, who has no sense about these things, have figured out that a couple of our "newer" posters are old posters with new names, including ipso facto.) We all just need to step back and let the mods do their jobs. Even those who I don't get along with have every right to say what they want--I may not understand their motives, but I don't want them gone. I'll just ignore them. Now, if the trolls from IMDB show up, then we may have a problem. But until I see someone posting on here that all of old Hollywood was gay or racists, then I can handle the little skirmishes that come up. I may make a snarky comment or two (or twelve) but I'm staying out of fights on message boards for my own sanity.

 

I've even had to get a new name here in 2005 because of a board overhaul.

Link to post
Share on other sites

GrimeyFrank, I have already cast my vote as a representative of the great Empire State of our Union: NOO YAWK! But I?d like to ask you a couple of questions, and address some of my fellow TCM Board Members if I may. Just remember Grimey, please be fair and count abstaining voters as well. Remember the chads of Florida...and I don?t mean "The Baileys of Balboa" or Chad Everett either. Now:

 

* Do Texans get more than one vote because their state is bigger than Rhode Island?

 

* Would a vote under this fictitious cybername of mine count (CineMaven)? May I please have a second vote under my real name?

 

* Will the gay community be allowed to vote here even though the law of the land is OPPOSED to same sex marriage?

 

* Is to be banned forever, the same as being banned for eternity?

 

* How would you liken this current voting or surveying re: Restrictions to One Person= One Screen Name to the Kinsey report? (And when IS a cigar just a cigar?)

 

-----------

 

?YES. If we can send a man to the moon and return him safely to the Earth, then by God we should be able to figure out a way to find out who these posters are.? - fxreyman.

 

If we had sent a WOMAN to the moon and back...we wouldn?t have any imposters here on Earth. (That?s for the future Uhurus out there who love classic films and Anne Francis in "Forbidden Planet.")

 

-----------

 

?Sho nuff, honeychild! Oops! I've been in Dixie too long. I mean YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" - MissGoddess.

 

Lawdy lawdy, Miss Goddess. And how wuz things South of the Border...uh, I mean the Mason Dixon line with Senor Rhett Clark Victor?

 

--------

 

?Couldn't that then eliminate from the board a lot of good, respected, and long-standing members here? The troll would love that, Frank, especially since the troll loves to go back through old, old posts. He could say, for example, "Hey, CineMaven was banned once. So she is banned permanently under the new rule. Ban her for good now." Or me or you?? - filmlover.

 

Hey I might?ve been banned from the corner candy store for swiping some Good ?n Plenty candy but...

 

Donny Osmond?? Oh boy, Helenbaby.

 

Where's Richard Dawson when you need him.

 

Survey says...

 

Message was edited by CineMaven becuz without my wicked sense of humor about this whole sad :-( affair...I would have left this Board a long time ago. And that would have been MY loss. Besides...are there even classic film buffs IN Rhode Island??

 

Message was re-edited by CineMaven becuz there is a difference between their and there.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey there, FxReyMan -- YES. If we can send a man to the moon and return

him safely to the Earth, then by God we should be able to figure out a way to find out

who these posters are.

 

Wise words from a wise man. Before we can take that first step, we, the community,

must come to agree that there is an issue. If we, as a community, are okay with banned

members returning to this board under a new name(S), then we are. But if we are not

okay with this, then we must let our collective voice be heard.

 

And, yes, there are ways of preventing banned members from returning to this

board. There are.

 

Thank you for your vote.

 

Hi there, Lone Star -- I did read something about harassment and that would

seem to me to include stalking.

 

And so the liberal and conservative shake hands. I agree with you. I firmly believe stalking

is harassment and a direct violation of the Code of Conduct. Personally, I don't care if

someone wants to get their jollies off by stalking me. Whatever. But I draw the line at

someone stalking those I care about, especially women.

 

But what the hey do I know about protecting those I care about? I've never been married

and I don't have any children. But I'll tell you what, If I did have a wife and kids, I'd do what

I could to make sure they were safe. I wouldn't allow a stalker put on a different shirt and

think everything is fine-n-dandy. No, sir. And I know damn well you wouldn't, either.

 

Also, the person or persons banned might have appealed the decision to have him

banned and won his case and the TCM administrators reinstated him. We don't

know?

 

I'm all for an appeal process. However, I've got MAJOR problems if someone has been

banned MORE than once yet continues to create trouble. That mess ain't flyin' with me.

 

How can someone who is banned get back on the site unless he changes his internet

provider?

 

That depends on how each site looks after its community. Some boards do what they can

to protect its good members. They care about the good folks.

 

I use At&T high speed. I admit I am no computer whiz. It's all I can do to turn it on and

off.

 

You also know how to write about Fred Thompson. :D

 

Thank you for voicing your opinion and your vote.

 

Hey there, Helen -- No one asked me about banning,

 

Ohh, I most certainly did. You are a member of this board and you are one who was here

before me. Your word comes before mine. You see, I'm someone who respects their

"elders."

 

I didn't come to this board crying about how nobody liked me and that others had

friendships. We all have our "first day." I'm of the belief we are to earn our place. All

I can be is myself. If people like me, they like me. If they don't, they don't. I cannot

demand everyone be my best friend. I just can't. And if someone doesn't wish to talk to

me, I'm not going to chase them all around the board, demanding that they do. I'll fit in

where I fit in.

 

So do you vote "no" to the question? You are all right with a person who is banned from

THIS message board returning under a new name?

 

YEA on banned members remaining banned:

 

Bronxgirl48 (FL)

CineMaven (NY)

filmlover (CA)

FrankGrimes (PA)

fxreyman (CO)

JackFavell (CT)

JakeHolman (TX)

johnm001 (PA)

lzcutter (CA)

MissGoddess (NY)

molo14 (VA)

mongo (FL)

rohanaka (MO)

 

NAY on banned members remaining banned:

 

Awaiting our first cast vote.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, Ipso Facto -- Do you believe a banned member should remained banned or do you

believe they should be permitted to return using a new name(S)?

 

It's a very simple policy question. I'm not saying I know if anyone has been banned. But if

a member WERE banned, do you believe they should REMAIN banned? I look forward to

your vote.

 

Welcome to the board! It's so great to see a new member caring about the board as much

as you do.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, Frank, frankly (no pun intended), I suppose the best way to answer the question would be to say "I don't know if I know all the facts".

 

Like I said, I don't know if any individual(s) have received a ban of any duration or if they have been unbanned after a specific amount of time. And I don't honestly think TCM would tell me, if I asked.

 

Let's take a look at the example I gave earlier, MrHoneywell. Some people assume he was banned, and have said as much in the forums. While I don't presume to know something that TCM has not, to the best of my knowledge, publicly announced, I couldn't care less if he started posting again this very minute, provided that he abided by the code of conduct and refrained from making personal attacks. Why should I demand to TCM that they hold a lifetime sanction against one person who (presumably) is one of their viewers?

 

If MrHoneywell came back and didn't engage in personal attacks, I'd welcome him with open arms. I'd be willing to listen to anything he had to say, if it involved a civilized discussion, either publicly or privately. Of course I would much rather that the discussions involved movies, either those on TCM's schedule or anything that was available elsewhere.

 

Surely, I have no reason to say I would hold a lifelong grudge against him, on the contrary, I'd love to offer him my sincere friendship.

 

See, deep down, I believe that all people are inherently good, no matter what they may do in times of duress, or extreme frustration.

 

Also, in discussing anything that may have happened in the forums, I would also keep in mind this part of the Code of Conduct:

 

Keep in mind that reporting conduct as a violation does not mean it constitutes a violation, or that Licensors must or will take any action against such conduct or the user engaging in such conduct. In the event Licensors do take action against any reported conduct, it has no obligation to inform the person or persons reporting such conduct. Finally, it is a violation of the Code to knowingly make a false report against another user, or to use the reporting process to harass or intimidate a user, or to encourage others to do so.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
© 2022 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...