Suspension protocol

[jenglisbe]

I was recently suspended for 7 days and have two issues I'd like to raise and hopefully get feedback on.

1. I was emailed on Tuesday, November 29 at 10:53am EST to be notified of my suspension. It took place immediately. I wasn't given any warning that it would be happening then and in fact prior to seeing the email had gone to the board and had been automatically logged out. That is what first even led me to wonder what was going on. I think it would be nice to give people, say, 12 hours notice so they can be prepared. I had personal conversations going on in private messages and would have liked to have been able to give them a heads up and maybe trade emails with those people or something so we could still converse as opposed to me just disappearing on them.

2. When I tried to log in on the board, it said my account was deactivated until 12:00am on December 7. That means that effectively my suspension was for 8 days as November 30-December 6 is 7 days, but I also missed out on most of November 29 since the suspension started in the morning on that date. If admins are going to say "7 days," it should be a strict 7 days.

[Juan Carlos]

Hi. Apologies for the delay, but I'm going to answer to the issues you have.

1. All the suspensions are effective immediately. This means that the account is disabled after the e-mail is sent. The same applies when a poster is banned and they're not allowed to be back in the forum, so we don't allow a grace period where people are aware of their suspension or ban beforehand.

2. Suspensions are either seven days or fourteen days, depending of the warning level the poster has and the period of time begins after the e-mail is sent and should end based on the period of time you're previously warned. It seems that there was a mistake setting up the disable of your account, hence the reason why it took one more day than expected. As a consequence, I, as part of staff, would like to apologize for this and we're going to try our best to avoid doing the same mistake once again.

If you have any doubt, don't hesitate to reply to this thread or send me a PM, whichever you prefer.

[jenglisbe]

I have another question. In your rules it says the intent of the poster will be considered, but no admin has asked me about my intent. How are you considering the intention of posters if you aren't asking them about it? No admin has ever asked me about my intent or had any type of discussion with me to ask where I'm coming from in any way at all.

[bboat11]

Intent matters more in some situations than others, but usually it is probably more accurately described as "pattern of behavior". Whether somebody has engaged in the reported behavior before, and what type of relationship they have with the posters with whom they are having conflict, one can reasonably ascertain a poster's intent.

And ultimately, even though the intent will be considered, in most cases it doesn't matter nearly as much as how a post comes across. So, for example, if somebody repeatedly brings up an artist that they don't like, knowing full well that discussions about said artist have a history of derailing the thread with arguments, and they continue to bring up that artist anyway, it doesn't really matter what their intentions were because the effect on the thread is the same.

Where intent matters the most it usually comes down to relationships and history. So for example, if someone tells another poster that they are stupid, it could be actionable if there is no prior relationship between the two people and you can tell it is an attack, while there may be no need for action if the people involved are friends who mean no harm to each other and are just trying to be funny. The person doing the reporting may not always know the full history, so we use our best judgment to determine the intent behind interactions such as that.

[jenglisbe]

Dec 11, 2022 1:17:08 GMT -5 bboat11 said:

Intent matters more in some situations than others, but usually it is probably more accurately described as "pattern of behavior". Whether somebody has engaged in the reported behavior before, and what type of relationship they have with the posters with whom they are having conflict, one can reasonably ascertain a poster's intent.

And ultimately, even though the intent will be considered, in most cases it doesn't matter nearly as much as how a post comes across. So, for example, if somebody repeatedly brings up an artist that they don't like, knowing full well that discussions about said artist have a history of derailing the thread with arguments, and they continue to bring up that artist anyway, it doesn't really matter what their intentions were because the effect on the thread is the same.

Where intent matters the most it usually comes down to relationships and history. So for example, if someone tells another poster that they are stupid, it could be actionable if there is no prior relationship between the two people and you can tell it is an attack, while there may be no need for action if the people involved are friends who mean no harm to each other and are just trying to be funny. The person doing the reporting may not always know the full history, so we use our best judgment to determine the intent behind interactions such as that.

This all makes sense, thank you. But if you don't know the history, why don't you ask instead of just making assumptions? You've also told me before to consider the feelings of others, but no admin has asked me where I'm coming from and don't seem to have considered my feelings. More so I am wondering why there doesn't seem to be more discussion with the posters being suspended. This thread is the first time I feel like I've had any kind of back-and-forth with admins, and it is appreciated.