Seamus Haley
Big Game Hunter
Questions- with a few notes for those who may not be aware of the situation I am asking about... then some soapboxing. Any answers that end up forthcoming would be appreciated.
The first member who had paid into the contribution system (since the changes that have them acting as moderators) to the benefactor level or above was incrementally fined and suspended recently after hitting the 300 warning point mark.
It was Dave Lawson, an individual, I feel it's worth noting, who many members and mods expressed concerns about when he bought into the program to begin with.
He apparantly (making an assumption here) paid his fine and is listed as an active member once more. His member title says "Registered User" but he has the contributor level coins of a Benefactor Level membership. This leaves me a bit confused about his specific situation which, I am again assuming, would be translated over to any other members who end up in the same situation.
So if a moderator is suspended and fined, when they pay their fine, what membership level do they return at? Baseline registered? Are they reinstated at their previous membership level, with all of it's associated benefits? Are they placed into some new category where they have *some* of their former benefits but not others?
If the icon is taken at face value, then they are reinstated at their former level. With the ability to issue warning points, create ads, signatures, bigger upload limits, ad bumping, negative karma... and so on and so forth.
If the member title is taken at face value, the individual has lost all of those abilities.
If the member is dropped down to baseline membership, are they then allowed to make another contribution to "rebuy" into the program?
Now the soapboxing.
When the program was put into place I had expressed a concern that it lacked the ability to inhibit undesireable elements from participating. Some of the most notorious and long term bad guys, con men, liars and thieves in the industry bought into it, as well as individuals who had proven through their past bannings and suspensions that they were incapable of following the rules of the site, much less enforcing them.
I'd like to reitterate those concerns now, stressing that the formerly hypothetical scumbag has demonstrated that the concerns were justified. I believe that individuals who have been banned or suspended should be prohibited from participating in the program since the overwhelming majority of those individuals form a clearly undesireable element.
One of the counterpoints that was made when I suggested this before was that there were a small, tiny minority of individuals who may have been suspended or banned for reasons that, in retrospect, were less about their conduct. I believe there were a few specific individuals who had... changed their tone and approach or who experienced bans due to personal issues that weren't really about site conduct and the allowance was made to let them participate. That's conjecture on my part of course, but it was the impression I got at the time. I believe that this is an example of pardoning the many for the sake of the few- ignoring the (sometimes infamous) misdeeds of genuinely bad individuals simply because they shared a defining characteristic with a minescule subsection of members who don't warrant the same treatment. I'm inclined to say that making specific and pointed exceptions for those few redeemed (or wrongly condemned) individuals is a better solution than letting in the negative contributors.
It's possible that this is the case now, at least where the system allows for contributors to directly impact other members, as my questions demonstrate, I'm unclear as to what kind of conclusion was reached. But I am very, very curious.
Short version: The idea behind the bemefactor mod program was to allow individuals who demonstrated a positive investment in the site take some of the workload and grant the ability to dictate the future a bit more strongly. Banned individuals, contributions or not, have clearly demonstrated through their own misconduct that they do not have the site's best interests in mind and should be prohibited from participating in the full Benefactor Program.
Thanks in advance for any clarification of the situation and any consideration given to the suggested restrictions.
The first member who had paid into the contribution system (since the changes that have them acting as moderators) to the benefactor level or above was incrementally fined and suspended recently after hitting the 300 warning point mark.
It was Dave Lawson, an individual, I feel it's worth noting, who many members and mods expressed concerns about when he bought into the program to begin with.
He apparantly (making an assumption here) paid his fine and is listed as an active member once more. His member title says "Registered User" but he has the contributor level coins of a Benefactor Level membership. This leaves me a bit confused about his specific situation which, I am again assuming, would be translated over to any other members who end up in the same situation.
So if a moderator is suspended and fined, when they pay their fine, what membership level do they return at? Baseline registered? Are they reinstated at their previous membership level, with all of it's associated benefits? Are they placed into some new category where they have *some* of their former benefits but not others?
If the icon is taken at face value, then they are reinstated at their former level. With the ability to issue warning points, create ads, signatures, bigger upload limits, ad bumping, negative karma... and so on and so forth.
If the member title is taken at face value, the individual has lost all of those abilities.
If the member is dropped down to baseline membership, are they then allowed to make another contribution to "rebuy" into the program?
Now the soapboxing.
When the program was put into place I had expressed a concern that it lacked the ability to inhibit undesireable elements from participating. Some of the most notorious and long term bad guys, con men, liars and thieves in the industry bought into it, as well as individuals who had proven through their past bannings and suspensions that they were incapable of following the rules of the site, much less enforcing them.
I'd like to reitterate those concerns now, stressing that the formerly hypothetical scumbag has demonstrated that the concerns were justified. I believe that individuals who have been banned or suspended should be prohibited from participating in the program since the overwhelming majority of those individuals form a clearly undesireable element.
One of the counterpoints that was made when I suggested this before was that there were a small, tiny minority of individuals who may have been suspended or banned for reasons that, in retrospect, were less about their conduct. I believe there were a few specific individuals who had... changed their tone and approach or who experienced bans due to personal issues that weren't really about site conduct and the allowance was made to let them participate. That's conjecture on my part of course, but it was the impression I got at the time. I believe that this is an example of pardoning the many for the sake of the few- ignoring the (sometimes infamous) misdeeds of genuinely bad individuals simply because they shared a defining characteristic with a minescule subsection of members who don't warrant the same treatment. I'm inclined to say that making specific and pointed exceptions for those few redeemed (or wrongly condemned) individuals is a better solution than letting in the negative contributors.
It's possible that this is the case now, at least where the system allows for contributors to directly impact other members, as my questions demonstrate, I'm unclear as to what kind of conclusion was reached. But I am very, very curious.
Short version: The idea behind the bemefactor mod program was to allow individuals who demonstrated a positive investment in the site take some of the workload and grant the ability to dictate the future a bit more strongly. Banned individuals, contributions or not, have clearly demonstrated through their own misconduct that they do not have the site's best interests in mind and should be prohibited from participating in the full Benefactor Program.
Thanks in advance for any clarification of the situation and any consideration given to the suggested restrictions.
