a second protest against checkers' behaviour

[AngharadTy]

Just a note, in general, to clarify: It's valid to PM a mod if you think a topic was posted in the wrong place. It's not right to post on that thread and say it should be moved. This is for several reasons: First, if the original poster realizes the post is in the wrong place, but someone else has posted on the thread, they can no longer delete it and repost it on their own. Second, if a mod does see the post... well, they're already there, they can see for themselves if the post needs moving. Third, we want public policing of the forum to be from mods only, to lessen potential confusion from other members, and to ensure consistency with the rules.

However, in that particular instance, the issue was not whether he was right, or even really that it was public backseat modding: it was that it was backseat modding after many requests, and then demands, for it to cease.

I wanted to make that clear.

[gidget]

Wow!

I generally just kinda skim Checkers posts and ignore them if they seem to be wandering off topic or whatever. Yes, he can be annoying at times. He certainly doesn't contribute much to the discussions.

But I read through all those examples (since I don't read the Subeta boards) and what shocked me the most was how often he was provoked. Yeah, he should not be so easily provoked, but he really shouldn't have been told by AngharadTy:

If you thought sun was common before, you need to get your monitor checked out. Or your eyes. Or your brain. I don't know. It's very obviously not common.

That was uncalled for and quite provocative. It was quite out of character for AngharadTy, whom I've always found before to be fair with her posts. The response to it shouldn't be labeled as a good example of rudeness and disrespect for a mod, though.

Since Cranberry has covered her confrontation with Checkers, I won't rehash that particular incident.

Many of those other examples of Checkers' wrongdoing are truly much ado about nothing. If they'd been made by any other poster here, they would not have been an issue.

Other players are able to say that they think a thread should be under another topic without getting their heads bitten off.

Other players can mention that their brother didn't allow them use of the scanner and express disappointment without it turning into sibling rivalry.

But these posts were made by Checkers who has a history of breaking rules, ignoring pms from the mods, and who has gotten on everyone's last nerve. So people are much more sensitive to what might follow.

I don't have any investment in whether Checkers stays or is banned. If he's banned, that's fewer posts I tend to skip over without fully reading. But personally, I find most of these examples to be insufficient to explain his banning. The private stuff may be quite enough, though.

[AngharadTy]

That was uncalled for and quite provocative. It was quite out of character for AngharadTy, whom I've always found before to be fair with her posts.

I can only say that I am very sorry that I let behind-the-scenes tension leak over into my public posts, and I regret what I said.

[bonecrivain]

I agree that none of those specific incidents are ban-worthy. The fact that every single one of those incidents happens with checkers at the center of them does signal, to me at least, that something is going on.

It's not even the fact that he does all of those things (backseat modding, contributing to arguments, etc); it's the fact that he continues to do them after being told time and time and time again to stop. That is the key difference.

Yes, he's been provoked in some of those links. But, again, that's because his behavior has become intolerable. I know I've been barely able to keep myself from snapping at him lately, and it's only going to get worse if he stays.

The babysitting analogy is a good one. Imagine a child who constantly breaks rules and who will not listen to a single word you say with any indication that he has understood you or will modify his behavior. Then imagine that when you *do* attempt to reason with him yet again, he tells you that you're now on his "list" of "nasty babysitters."

I don't like sharing PMs, but let me quote the end of his last PM to me:

I'm going to quote a friend of yours, and I don't care if my Posting privs are taken away for it.

''Don't you fucking reply''
As your 'forgiving and kind' mod friend says.

Goodbye. I didn't have you down as a nasty mod to ignore/watch out for. -changes mind-

This was after an exchange of about 3 PMs from each side. I admit I told him in my last PM that I had lost patience with him because he no longer deserved it, but that was because in that PM, as well as in the two previous, I had been trying to explain a very simple concept: do not act like a mod if you are not a mod. He would not acknowledge this and told me that he would not listen to me. So now I'm on his list of mods to ignore. Which is precisely why we have been getting frustrated with him.

I'm sorry to say this, but if checkers stays on this forum, I don't know if I'll have the patience to continuing policing him. Due to our constant attempts to explain the rules to checkers, I think he's been a little less caustic than he used to be. Perhaps the other mods can still deal with him. I can't.

[Jessi]

Many of those other examples of Checkers' wrongdoing are truly much ado about nothing. If they'd been made by any other poster here, they would not have been an issue.

I disagree. It's true - another user may make a comment every now and then that could be considered back-seat modding. HOWEVER - they don't do it nearly EVERY time they post. If they DID, and got called out on it, they would stop. If they started a public argument, they would get called out on it, and stop. I can't think of any other member here that has blatantly disrespected the mods the way checkers has - over and over, after being told several times not to.

If this was a one-time offense thing, then yes, I would think this was extreme. But it's not. It's been going on -constantly- since Checkers became a member here. CONSTANTLY. Whether it's been disrespecting the mods, or disrespecting the rest of the community, it's been going on -constantly-. A couple mod replies lately have been harsh, but they have never replied to anyone that way before, including Checkers.

I think it's a rather blatant sign of how frustrated everyone is getting with him. I find myself biting my tongue because I do follow the rules, and I don't want to start an argument on board, or backseat mod, or get into trouble like that - a reason a lot of members are keeping quiet.

I repeat what I said earlier - when one member is forcing SEVERAL members, some how have been on Neocolours for -years-, to leave, or not come to the boards as frequently, or avoid the forum in general - that is a problem. A lot of people are losing patience, and it's showing in the way they reply. But why are they getting chewed out here - they've had one or two snappy moments when checkers has had hundreds. There's only so much people can take.

[daisybell]

Thank you Bon, for posting that. I agree that sharing PMs is not something I would want do to, but I'm glad you did: now I know I am justified in proposing checkers should be banned. I feel very sorry for the mods who have had to deal with this- I can see why they responded rudely although I don't think it was right that they did. I think if I was pushed as far as checkers has pushed some of you, I would come to the end of my tether too.

He has not responded to the serious problems we have with his behaviour: he has not listened to what the mods have said regarding his continual offences in backseat modding and rudeness. It cannot be that he does not know he has done wrong- so therefore it must be that he does not care, as that excerpt of PM shows:

I don't care if my Posting privs are taken away for it.

I don't think there is anything else we can do but to ban him. He has not given us any reason yet not to ban him, in his posts in this topic- he has the chance now to tell us, if he does care.

The only question I have now is whether this should be a fixed term ban, and for how long. I don't think he has warranted a permanent ban yet- we have had members who have returned after a ban and shown that they can change their ways. I am willing to give him a chance to return and show he can change too. What do others think?

[Jessi]

Personally, I would go for a permanent ban, but that's just me, I suppose. He's proven he can't change by staying here and being told - I don't see how being away will make that any better. He had a good chunk of time to show US that he was willing to become a mature member of this community. He didn't, and has become a constant headache to the members and mods. I don't like seeing our mods disrespected - personally, I think they are wonderful people - and I also don't like seeing them so frustrated with the situation that they have to start acting less-than-wonderful.

So... yes, I'd want a permanent ban, but I'll settle for anything.

[EofS]

I think my inclination, were we to go for a ban, would be for a fixed term one. Yes, he has known that his behaviour has been unacceptable for a long time and has shown an unwillingness to change. However thus far he has had only... reprimands, short term "you can't do xyz" bans and the like. As far as I can see, banning him properly is the first really strong punishment he will have. And I think it's perhaps not entirely fair to condemn him to a permanent ban before we've at least given him a chance with a temporary one. Give him, I dunno, a month banned, then a month on probation.

It's a bit like giving a student lots of detentions and some lines and seeing no improvement. Unless there's a particularly serious incident, you'd move on to a suspension, not straight to expulsion. And I don't think he's done any single thing yet which merits a permanent ban.

(The analogy I really want to make is to the causes of WWII, but I fear that might invoke Godwin's Law.)

[Iggy]

If we ban by username, he could come back quickly and have revenge or something.

And, if we ban by IP...would that ban Adi as well?

[daisybell]

Yes, an IP ban would affect Adi- and I don't think that's fair, so I would say it isn't an option.

As the mods have said, probation is hard to police and it isn't much more than the verbal warnings he has had already. I agree with E that a permanent ban is a step too far at the moment and we should give him an intermediate punishment.

If we agreed on a fixed term ban on checkers' account and he tried to avoid the ban by creating other accounts (sockpuppetry, effectively) then we would have to decide again if he warranted a permanent ban. I don't think we lose much by giving him the chance to come back in x months time. If he hasn't changed after that time then I would support a longer ban.

[sureq]

Forget everything I said, if Checkers has a "list of mods to ignore" it merits a ban. It's as simple as that.

[FourEyes]

Forget everything I said, if Checkers has a "list of mods to ignore" it merits a ban. It's as simple as that.

Agreed. Besides, even after what I told him in the second page, even after I tried to help him, he simply continued to ignore the topic... So if he really doesn't care what happens or what we think of him, what does any of us have to lose?

[FaerieInGrey]

I quietly and without much elaboration agree on a fixed term ban. I'd second E's proposal of a month ban and a month probation.

[Aaron]

Ok I've just read through all the pages, and I know I'm not the most active members, but eh. I don't really have a lot to say to be honest, I agree with what everyone else has said. And I know it hasn't been shown, but if a lot of stuff is being said to the mods through PM, then yeah, they shouldn't have to put up with that on top of monitoring the rest of the site..

So yeah, I agree to a ban.

[Figment]

I, too, think a fixed-term ban is a good idea. Despite it all, I am uncomfortable with a permanent ban -- that is something we have always reserved for the very worst offenders. Checkers' problem is that he doesn't want to change and refuses to listen to authority figures -- which, sustained over a long period of time, is very detrimental to the community, but is nothing along the lines of what others who have been permanently banned have done. A temporary ban would sort of fit into a "three strikes" system. This is his second. If, for some reason, he wanted to come back reformed in a month or three, then he should have that option. A temporary ban is really the only thing I can think of that might make an impact and teach him that months of this sort of behaviour -- and, more importantly, refusing to listen to moderators and not even attempting to change -- is unacceptable, and will result in consequences.