In my time on the forum you stand out as such an important contributor. That is probably why you have never been banned. If you got banned I would certainly question being a participant on the forum because your own thinking seems so important. I just think that all of us need to slow down a bit. As way of feedback; I am inclined to think that your use of equations in threads may not help because they are a little bit abstract for many, such as myself, who don't come from a background in mathematics.

Of course, it is difficult because life is pressured, often with so little outlet. I often feel that I am exploding or imploding, juggling so much as mental gymnastics. However, all of us probably need to watch our philosophy footprints; as real as carbon footprint in ecology, but it is a hard task.

If If everyone was so careful there may not be any philosophy threads and discussions at all. So, it is an ongoing area for thinking about ideas and free association, but I definitely value the contributions which you have made in many philosophy discussions, especially in various threads which I created. I would be devastated if you were ever banned, just as if I were banned. Of course, if banning does happen, it is probably best to rise above it, and see one's ideas and thinking as not being irreducible to the forum and others' perceptions of such ideas. This may be in line with the deepest understanding of what philosophy stands for, in the outer and inner credentials of meaning in life.

A good question. Lets examine what goes into a ban. First, a ban usually only happens after repeated reports and warnings from the moderators. I've had first hand experience here of having a post removed, or a warning from the moderators to tone down rhetoric. What did I do? I apologized, listened, and adjusted my approach.

As you can see, I am not banned. So we can take this evidence to show that the moderators do not ban people at first, but warn and reach out to show how to properly behave on these forums. Why would a moderator ban a person then? The only reason I can think of is despite repeated warnings and letting people know how to behave, they did not adjust their behavior or posting patterns.

Forgiveness should be given to those that try. Those that do not try are a drain of resources on the moderators time. They disturb other posters, and make the forums a less conducive place to genuine polite discussion and thought. While you see that they were suddenly banned one day, what you didn't see was likely the weeks and/or months of repeated warnings, requests, and second, third, etc. chances that were repeatedly ignored by the poster. Why would you allow such a person back? They obviously don't care for polite warnings. So we have to use a cudgel to get them to care? What happens if a moderator turns their back for a second? Or if the allowed person comes back and tries to take revenge before being kicked out again?

There is a truth that all forgiving people need to understand. There are people who will never change in the world. They will be unable to fit into certain social and written laws. The only solution after repeated attempts at allowing them to change is to remove them. In my experience, to be banned on this forum takes a great disregard for the moderators, the rules, and repeated violations. As such, as long as the moderators involved followed such a process, bans should not be allowed back.

To better understand the system, what happens, particularly so with long time posters, is that a complaint is made, or a mod notices a problem, and we then read through the poster's comments and try to contextualize it. — Hanover

One last thing.
If there are specific steps in the 'Banning' procedure, is this made clear to the member concerned?

The person's response matters. We're not looking for groveling or even an apology, but really just an assurance the problem is taken care of. — Hanover

Is there a set period of time between the steps?
If not already in place, I think a slow progression might be what is required.

I'm not sure if the Banning procedure is stickied anywhere.
All the better for the sake of transparency and then there would be no need for a thread like this one.

While you see that they were suddenly banned one day, what you didn't see was likely the weeks and/or months of repeated warnings, requests, and second, third, etc. chances that were repeatedly ignored by the poster. — Philosophim

Is that what happened in e.g. the last banning?

Is that what happened in e.g. the last banning? — Amity

When I was warned for my posts or behavior, I was reached out to privately. Moderators generally do not air such issues publicly. No one knew when moderators contacted me, and I'm sure others on here who have been warned can confirm that. I see no reason why it would be different for the recently banned individual.

You know what would solve all this.

A new section (preferably one that includes an Arcade) that has a Guest shoutbox/rudimentary live chat... just to keep things interesting. When someone wants to learn something and improve their life, asking a master or expert is intimidating. You don't want to waste their time, seem like an idiot, yadda yadda, etcetera, etcetera, what have you. The improvement of one's self is the least of goals as far as philosophy is concerned, rather to empower one with wisdom and confidence behind said wisdom to improve the life of other's around oneself and thus society as a whole.

As philosophers we should take full advantage in every opportunity there is to do so.

But why a definitive banning instead of a temporary or a progressive banning (e.g. do it once and I'll ban you for one week, do it twice and I'll ban you for 3 weeks, do it thrice and I'll ban you forever)? Olivier5 wasn't like Bartricks at all.

I see no reason why it would be different for the recently banned individual. — Philosophim

Thank you.

Thanks for outlining what you meant by 'progressive banning'.
That makes sense. And wouldn't need to be spelled out each time, if part of a stickied procedure.

Olivier5 wasn't like Bartricks at all. — neomac

Agreed. But that doesn't seem to matter. Rules is rules.

As you might imagine, defiance is the worst response, not because it might be insulting, but because it's a refusal to play by the rules. — Hanover

The forum is a good place, one that means a lot to me. The conversations are often high quality, freewheeling, and mostly more or less civil. A lot of that comes from the high quality and dedication of the moderators. In the past I have not been shy about speaking up, some might say mouthing off, about a particular banning decision. That doesn't mean I don't remember who gets the credit for this place.

That being said, what bothers me most is that posters, often including moderators, use the Bannings thread to shit on those who have been kicked out. It is unnecessary, unbecoming, and un-philosophical. People just don't seem to be able to resist the opportunity to be petty and vindictive.

Very well said :clap: :up:

Jesus Christ, it really not that complicated. When the moderators tell you to stop breaking a forum rule, listen and stop breaking the rule and you dont get banned.
That really shouldnt be something a grown adult has trouble with, and everyone in support of the OP is acting like a child and shouldnt be indulged. Grow up people, accept that if someone gets banned its nobodies fault but their own.
Also, ask yourselves why his is the best philosophy forum? Might it have something to do the moderation?!
OP and friends want to bring a little more kindergarten to the forum policies. I think OP and friends should be put in with actual kindergartener's so they get another shot at that whole growing into an adult who accepts the consequences of their actions and others.

Jesus Christ, it really not that complicated. — DingoJones

Not for the simple-minded, for sure.

People just don't seem to be able to resist the opportunity to be petty and vindictive. — T Clark

Look at it this way. The average man (or woman) wakes up, sees his significant other. There are rules to follow. He or she goes to their job. There are rules to follow. You have to take a bathroom break, you guessed it, there are still rules to follow. You hang out with your friends/acquaintances after. Yup. Still rules to follow.

A man logs onto the Internet.. Suddenly. Freedom is found.

Agreed. But that doesn't seem to matter. Rules is rules.

As you might imagine, defiance is the worst response, not because it might be insulting, but because it's a refusal to play by the rules. — Hanover — Amity

I don't know what happened. In any case, even if rules is rules, sanctions for transgression are discretionary. So admins can still reason on case by case basis, and proportion sanctions to the severity of the transgression, without denying a second chance for positive long-term contributors.

what bothers me most is that posters, often including moderators, use the Bannings thread to shit on those who have been kicked out. It is unnecessary, unbecoming, and un-philosophical. People just don't seem to be able to resist the opportunity to be petty and vindictive. — T Clark

Good point, Clarky.

A man logs onto the Internet.. Suddenly. Freedom is found. — Outlander

For me, the forum is not just the internet. There is a community here.

In any case, even if rules is rules, sanctions for transgression are discretionary. So admins can still reason on case by case basis, and proportion sanctions to the severity of the transgression, without denying a second chance for positive long-term contributors. — neomac

You would think so.
To answer my previous question:

I'm not sure if the Banning procedure is stickied anywhere.
All the better for the sake of transparency and then there would be no need for a thread like this one. — Amity

Here's what is written in TPF Guidelines:

Bans:

Admins have the right to ban members. We don't do that lightly, and you will probably be warned about your behaviour if you are under consideration for a ban. However, if you are a spammer, troll, racist or in some other way obviously unsuited to the forum, a summary ban will be applied. Bans are permanent and non-negotiable. Returning banned members will be rebanned.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/480/site-guidelines/p1

Here's what is written in TPF Guidelines:

Bans:

Admins have the right to ban members. We don't do that lightly, and you will probably be warned about your behaviour if you are under consideration for a ban. However, if you are a spammer, troll, racist or in some other way obviously unsuited to the forum, a summary ban will be applied. Bans are permanent and non-negotiable. Returning banned members will be rebanned. — Amity

OK I missed that. Yet a more flexible approach concerning the banning policy might still be more beneficial than a rigid one to this forum.

Yet a more flexible approach concerning the banning policy might still be more beneficial than a rigid one to this forum. — neomac

I agree. It would seem to be a fairer approach.
However, it was suggested earlier that 'temporary bans' or a suspension might be troublesome.
Sometimes it's easier to apply rigid rules, I guess :chin:
The mods do the best they can on a voluntary basis.
Not everyone has the time or inclination to be flexible. Indeed, they might then stand accused of personal bias...

Enough. This time I'm out :sparkle:

It's a choice. Precisely because admins care to preserve or boost forum quality they do not need to sacrifice good contributors for failing to abide by the rules occasionally which doesn't mean to get rid of bans, just to make the ban policy a little bit more flexible (at least for dubious cases). I'm not questioning the admins, but I would welcome a revision of the banning policy. That's all.

I don't have any issues with how banning works on this site.

↪neomac
Not sure what a 'progressive banning' would look like :chin: — Amity

How about losing the ability to create new discussions as phase one. Then limiting number of daily posts to 1 as phase two. Lots of simple but fun ways that could be done. Good way to illustrate the difference between a right and a privilege.

How about losing the ability to create threads as phase one. Then limiting number of daily posts to 1 as phase two. Lots of simple but fun ways that could be done. — Pantagruel

I thought I was done here but...cut-off point will be in 30 mins - 19.30hrs my time.

I am sure that Admin/mods are listening carefully and then will do exactly as they please :wink:

What intrigued me about the last banning was the way it was explained but yet left a lot of questions unanswered. I still don't know what happened because, of course, posts are deleted.
This is frustrating. It is open, then, to speculation.

My thoughts were that it was a relatively sudden ban with no time given for tempers to cool.

Also, it might have been the outcome of an extended personal escalation between 2 members.

Perhaps, the trolling complained of was a case of continual subtle trolling as described in your excellent thread:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/13901/respectful-dialog

A reply from @Bylaw re your:

I'd question your use of 'subtle trolling' as I think the definitive characteristic of trolling is that it is intentional and premeditated.
— Pantagruel
I think subtle trolling can be premeditated, especially in heavily moderated forums. But I've noticed the seemingly oxymoronic phrase is now fairly commonplace out there. That said, I mean it as a challenging idea. And why should someone oblivious or sneaky, who can end up torturing someone for pages, be considered less a troll?

And:

It's a bit like the topic of trolling [...] the bluntly and openly rude troll is fairly easy to deal with. It's all right there on the table. You know what is happening. — Bylaw

Also from @Christoffer:

So yeah, obligation to treat others with respect is a fundamental part of philosophical discussion, otherwise the topic being discussed will never transform into new knowledge, it will just be a debate with fists that only solidifies the different opinions further into deep cognitive bias. — Christoffer

A real pity when this happens and not picked up on.
It's happened before and it will happen again.
Some expert, clever trollers are never banned...

Fine.

For me, the forum is not just the internet. There is a community here. — T Clark

Is this supposed to support or disprove my claim? (if you had to make a choice)

Either choice promotes my point.

I agree.

I believe in second chances. People do change/acknowledge community guidelines after a ban has been employed causing them to re-evaluate their approach.

I agree that contributors can be 90% of the time within the guidelines for a long period of time and for that 10% of the time falter/make mishaps for which they are banned permanently.

Not sure if this is totally just. Perhaps a temporary ban followed by a probation period is more apt.

Having said that, if someone wants to create a new account with a new email address its not that difficult, sure they have lost their philosophical history but it allows them to participate once again. A fresh start.

It's not like anyone can be permanently banned from contributing, it's account specific.

Think of tpf as a magazine or philosophical daily paper, staffed by volunteer contributors and volunteer editors. — unenlightened

Except it is not. It is a voluntary community, moderated ideally for that communities benefit. There was no benefit here afaict, rather the mere assuagement of the moderators' egos.

Having said that, if someone wants to create a new account with a new email address its not that difficult, sure they have lost their philosophical history but it allows them to participate once again. A fresh start.

It's not like anyone can be permanently banned from contributing, it's account specific. — Benj96

For new posters, and even someone like me, that is not that a big deal. But Olivier5 had thousands of posts, and more importantly, real relationships, mayhap even friendships. It seems cruel to sever those over this incident, which had multiple sides to it.

Think of tpf as a magazine or philosophical daily paper — unenlightened

That's not an apt analogy. A magazine or a paper is not a place for discussion. Yes, sometimes a response to a published piece may be published, but for the most part it is a one-way broadcast to a silent and anonymous readership. An internet forum is a community and a discussion club. Quite a different dynamics and atmosphere.

This comment is not intended to argue for or against bannings. People get ostracized by their communities and banned from clubs just the same as here.