I’ll play Devil’s Advocate here, because I don’t disagree with the bans at all.
I already asked and warned them multiple times to lower it. They weren’t listening. If people get warned multiple times but refuse to listen, a ban is most likely a solution.
It seems as if the warnings weren’t based off of the rules we have on the matter. The rules don’t specifically say what is not allowed. It just says “porn” and “gore.” So warning based upon something that isn’t in the rules works in two ways:
- I’m sure your expressed the reasons for the warnings. There are some matters that are left up to moderator discretion, but I think those all of those issues should be up for debate.
- The users should have checked with you to see what was wrong. If they got warned but they didn’t respond to the warning saying they had a problem with the warning or a problem with understanding what was wrong, then they should have spoken up. Users and moderators have their own responsibilities in the matter.
However, I’ll address the reasoning of the ban as I see it later on.
It was only a week, from what I’ve read many people are thinking it was a permanent ban.
People didn’t read, and they didn’t bother to ask the right questions to the people involved. Simple as. I knew it was a week ban without the mod discussions.
They deserved the ban more than Jolly Jew, yet I hear no one complain about his ban. This makes those unhappy with it biased.
I sorta disagree. JJ has always been ragey, and he’s very much likely to insult people when he’s responsible himself. He deserved a ban, but for different reasons.
That isn’t to say that the others didn’t deserve a temporary ban though. I just think JJ was due as well.
Apparently they didn’t know a border on where to stop, and I agree, it can be unclear at times on what we allow. However, the border should already be partly known to them after all this time. If they were new, I could understand how confusion could be present, but they should be aware of what can be allowed.
Here is where I have a problem (but we’ve discussed the problems with my suggestion.) If we have hard, objectives as to what is allowed and what isn’t, then you have a problem with the rules and not the inconsistencies among moderation. You know what’s allowed. The responsibility and blame for being banned lies solely with the user.
As it stands, they didn’t know by the rules that they were breaking rules. They did get warnings, so it’s not unjustified and it’s not like they didn’t know, but I seriously don’t like how fluid rules can be.
They uploaded extremely rulebreaking content numerous times. However, as these images are removed I can no longer proof it. I don’t think removed images make their uploads justified just because the rule breaking content is no longer present.
Here was another problem. I think people saw it as you getting mad, because the bans didn’t come with the obviously explicit content. Had you banned them as soon as they had uploaded the explicit images after their first warnings, then I don’t think people would have been as upset or confused.
The bans came up only when JJ brought it up. I read your posts as being angry/annoyed. It made it seem that you banned them, because you were annoyed with them at that moment, and not because they had previously broken rules about explicit content.
Before the bans, I made sure to discuss the situation with other mods first before making a final decision. After listing the facts, we could all agree a ban was needed. I’m not a cruel and persecuting mod, their ban was the combined decision of multiple moderators.
Truth. I came in a little late to those discussions, but I don’t think any other moderator disagreed with the bans. If you post explicit content, then you will get a warning. If you post it again, then you will get banned.
That’s exactly what happened. There’s no argument here.
We are already pretty forgiving on uploads, especially when the sexual content was added for comical purposes. The content they uploaded was sexual for being sexual. Considering they have “Jimmy Rustler” in their names, the reason for the uploads should surely be taken into consideration.
Given some usernames and going by their explanatory posts before here their bans, they uploaded those images just to screw with people. That technically goes against the “Be Nice” catch-all rule, and it was violated repeatedly.
I originally said that people were often upvoting the image, so that people obviously liked it. Someone posed that this was because most people who disliked the image wouldn’t have voted it down. They just would have stopped visiting the gallery (which has been said by people here, in the FiM article comments, and in personal correspondence.) I believe that user has a point.
In any case, there is no need to post sexual content for the sake of posting sexual content. It is part of the fandom, so I believe that it almost needs to be there to some extent. However, that is only for the purpose of documenting the development of the fandom, and not to rustle jimmies. Also, the images, despite the desire to document portions the entire subculture, cannot be explicit. Even NSFW entries have images deleted due to very obscene/illegal content (e.g. lolicon, necrophilia, extreme violence, true bestiality, etc.)
Keep that in mind before anything else:
The users posted explicit content after they were warned. Perhaps it should have happened sooner, but they should have been banned. Period.
Another thing on being biased is that apparently their position as regulars on this justifies their actions. If a BNM uploads NSFW images for the sake of rustling, I would’ve gotten mutliple PMs very quickly pretty much demanding a ban for the BNM. But for some reason this doesn’t apply to them.
Yeah, there’s certainly a sense of seniority on KYM that extends beyond this situation. Heck, happens informally and formally.
I locked Jack Candle’s welcome back thread, and it was unlocked (I’m absolutely sure) due to the fact that he’s a moderator. If a BNM tries that, then it will be locked.
Same thing happened here, apparently. I think it’s partially due to people thinking that BNM’s who post “borderline” content are automatically trolls. Heck, if they lurked for a few weeks (which is what I did and what I would suggest), then they probably would have thought that it was OK to post such content, because others were posting it.
Because these people are known, browsers of the gallery know that they aren’t posting to make the fandom look bad…even though it has the same effect…and even though they are trying to screw with people.
In any case, the bans were justified. RandomMan didn’t go power crazy. He actually acted based upon the complaints of a user. He acted on behalf of users concerns. Isn’t that part of what moderators are supposed to do?