Member Removed

[AJ Konlucko]

The past incident does relate to this person who has now been removed. There is reason to believe they are the same person.

Spot on. This member and BettyBoop_71 / MazzaE are one and the same person.

[Terence Charles]

I am still not happy with the way in which this action was taken.
PGB states,

A lot more to this than what you (and other members) know about

Personally I feel that as most members of this Forum seem to be adults then why do we need to be 'protected from the details'' Surely if an action like this is considered then the members should be forewarned, and an explanation forthcoming. I personally do not need any protection, and I consider myself reasonable enough to assess information accurately.

This is a writers forum, and critics are the lifeblood of best sellers!

Imunch seemed to have a totally different agenda to the previous people you have identified him/he withr. Imunch made general derogatory statements, they weren't directed at any individual. Personally I was amused by the statements and interested to know why they were being made. I think Imunch was trying to provoke a reaction from us. Now we'll never know why. Are we quite sure that this is the same individual as BettyBoop etc. If so then why isn't the individual identified on the forum. Are we being protected again.

PGB quotes

Rule number 8. Forum administrators may deny any member access to this site at any time, should they see fit

I read Rule number 8 as saying a Moderator NOT Administrator has these powers.. An interesting typo!

Indeed this seems to be the main function of Moderators on the Forum, dealing with unruly members and assisting those that need it. Why weren't the moderators more involved with this individual if desperate action was needed.

If Imunch was BettyBoop et al, then this type of thing could be repeated and repeated with spurious memberships forming and being banned. Not a good thing for the forum. I believe that the BettyBoop types wither when the light of information shines on them.

PGB I do get concerned when someone seems to be becoming obsessed with 'banning' things, or taking dramatic negative actions. It was only a short time ago that you twice advocated removing memberships and of closing the Forum down completely. I think you should talk with the administration team more often. Let's get a positive and adult attitudes towards this forum, it's for writers not pre-schoolers in the sandpit.

[PaulE]

Hi Terence,

I appreciate your and other members concerns.

I completely agree that the way this was communicated seemed quite arbitrary, and that is something we'll need to address. The forum administrators and moderators are having a discussion on how to better handle these cases going forward, with an aim to producing some formal processes to put in place.

In this particular instance, there was enough evidence to indicate this was indeed the same person who was causing issues before. lmunch's responses were also similar to the other users mentioned, in that they started out with seemingly quite reasonable comments, which gradually devolved to insults and disruptive behaviour.

You are correct that we are all adults, and I'm all for transparency in decision making. If you have any suggestions we would welcome them.

Cheers
Paul

[AJ Konlucko]

I am still not happy with the way in which this action was taken.
PGB states,

A lot more to this than what you (and other members) know about

Personally I feel that as most members of this Forum seem to be adults then why do we need to be 'protected from the details'' Surely if an action like this is considered then the members should be forewarned, and an explanation forthcoming. I personally do not need any protection, and I consider myself reasonable enough to assess information accurately.

Your unhappiness is noted.
The moderators and administrators of this forum are appointed to manage the forum as they see fit, while at times the input of members is asked for, the final decisions lay with us. The moderators and administrators are aware of the details of this person, as PaulE said above.

Imunch seemed to have a totally different agenda to the previous people you have identified him/he withr. Imunch made general derogatory statements, they weren't directed at any individual. Personally I was amused by the statements and interested to know why they were being made. I think Imunch was trying to provoke a reaction from us. Now we'll never know why. Are we quite sure that this is the same individual as BettyBoop etc. If so then why isn't the individual identified on the forum. Are we being protected again.

lmunch = Bettyboop_71 / MazzaE. This has been confirmed. They are the same person.

PGB quotes

Rule number 8. Forum administrators may deny any member access to this site at any time, should they see fit

I read Rule number 8 as saying a Moderator NOT Administrator has these powers.. An interesting typo!

I am not sure where you are seeing this. Below is the full text of what every member agreeed to BEFORE they joined up.

Australian Writers' Forum - Registration
By accessing the Australian Writers’ Forum (hereinafter “we”, “us”, “our”, “Australian Writers' Forum”, “http://www.australianwritersforum.org.au/forum”), you agree to be legally bound by the following terms. If you do not agree to be legally bound by all of the following terms, then do not access and/or use the Australian Writers’ Forum. We may change these terms at any time and we’ll do our utmost to inform you—though it would be prudent to review this regularly yourself as your continued use of the Australian Writers’ Forum after changes means you agree to be legally bound by these terms as they are updated and/or amended.
The forum is for fiction and non-fiction writers (professional, amateur or interested) and people with associated interests (agents, publishers, illustrators, etc). At this stage, it’s an honour system, but if things get out of control, access to the forum may be restricted to members of an Australian writers’ centre, Australian Society of Authors, Australian Literary Agents’ Association, and/or similar organisations.
You need to be currently living in Australia.
You must not post any abusive, obscene, vulgar, slanderous, hateful, threatening, sexually-orientated or any other material that may violate any laws (including those of your country, Australia or International Law). Doing so may lead to you being immediately and permanently banned, with notification of your Internet Service Provider if deemed required by us.
You must not ask others to post anything potentially slanderous. If you need that kind of information, ask people to contact you privately.
You may not advertise—although you can ask questions related to your writing (that’s the whole idea!) or discuss/offer your professional services if someone asks. If you wish to advertise, you should consider the Australian Writer’s Marketplace Online and/or Australian writers’ centres.
Please don’t stray too far from the topic (ie, writing) for too long.
Forum administrators may remove, edit, move or close any topic at any time, should they see fit.
Forum administrators may deny any member access to this site at any time, should they see fit.
Forum administrators will not be held responsible for things that other people post on this forum.
The forum is powered by phpBB (hereinafter “they”, “them”, “their”, “phpBB software”, “www.phpbb.com”, “phpBB Group”, “phpBB Teams”) which is a bulletin board solution released under the “GNU General Public License v2” (hereinafter “GPL”) and can be downloaded from http://www.phpbb.com. The phpBB software only facilitates internet based discussions; the phpBB Group is not responsible for what it allows and/or disallows as permissible content and/or conduct. For further information about phpBB, please see http://www.phpbb.com/.
Any information you enter will be stored in a database. While this information will not be deliberately disclosed to any third party without your consent, neither the forum administrators nor phpBB shall be held responsible for any hacking attempt that may lead to the data being compromised.
The Internet Protocol (IP) address of all posts are recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions.

Indeed this seems to be the main function of Moderators on the Forum, dealing with unruly members and assisting those that need it. Why weren't the moderators more involved with this individual if desperate action was needed.

The moderators and administrators WERE involved and we had been discussing this member since yesterday morning when they first started with the posts we were concerned about. I had even said we should just keep an eye on them. It was only once their true identity came to light that I made the decision to ban them

If Imunch was BettyBoop et al, then this type of thing could be repeated and repeated with spurious memberships forming and being banned. Not a good thing for the forum. I believe that the BettyBoop types wither when the light of information shines on them.

Do you suggest just letting them do whatever they like?

PGB I do get concerned when someone seems to be becoming obsessed with 'banning' things, or taking dramatic negative actions. It was only a short time ago that you twice advocated removing memberships and of closing the Forum down completely. I think you should talk with the administration team more often. Let's get a positive and adult attitudes towards this forum, it's for writers not pre-schoolers in the sandpit.

Myself, the other administrators and moderators have CONSTANT discussions about many areas to do with the forum, just because you don't know about it or see it, does not mean it is not happening.
Your last comment "it's for writers" is EXACTLY why people who are not serious about writing should be and have been removed.

[Rath Darkblade]

Terence, I understand that you may be unhappy that administrators and moderators have the power to arbitrarily ban users. Perhaps you think that this power is extreme, and if so, you are correct.

However, please rest assured that we - i.e. the administrators and moderators - are generally cautious and reluctant to use this power, exactly u]because[/u] it is so extreme. We have other powers at our disposal, like editing or deleting other people's posts, or giving them warnings, and we have tried using all these.

Ultimately, we have the power to ban people because being a moderator is sometimes like being a policeman: part of our job is to keep the peace. Policemen do this by persuading or intimidating troublemakers, or ultimately by banging heads together and throwing them in jail. We don't have this power, clearly, but we must use whatever power has been vested in us. If we don't - if we allow troublemakers like lmunch to run amuck - then we stand guilty of neglect.

Please remember, too, that not all of us are adults here. Historically, we have had minors joining us as well - e.g. in 2013 we had a 14-year-old would-be writer who joined our Christmas writing challenge. We also have new writers here, who may not have our experience and who we're trying to encourage. If we allow troublemakers like lmunch in, however amusing we may personally find them, other people may take them seriously and be hurt personally. So you see, being an administrator is a balancing act and it is wiser to be cautious.

About 15 years ago (when I was a college student), I was a moderator on another board; the administrator was a university student in the US. Somehow, a fellow student of hers found her board, joined it, and then started issuing threats about raping her and similar, and calling her various names - "whore" and "slut" were some of the nicer ones. She immediately banned him, but he came back under a different account and wouldn't stop until we banned the IP address he was posting from. You can imagine how outraged and traumatised she was, and how sympathetic I was to her.

Lmunch is a similar case. There are at least two factors that warrant a ban:

1. Although his/her posts are milder than the above case (barely), s/he continually attacks everyone on the board;
2. Secondly, this person has now tried attacking us under three different accounts.

Finally, we have reason to believe that this person is here simply to try to "get at" one or more of our admin/moderator team. Personally, I consider this a case of online bullying, which is not and has never been acceptable.

Because of all these reasons, I support PGB's decision to ban lmunch.

[Enzed]

I totally support the decisions of the administrators and moderators to maintain the integrity of the forum by not allowing the bullying as described by Rath. And we do have some very young members who lack the maturity and life experience that would enable them to shrug off barbed comments that are designed to wound and often do.

The motives of Lmunch? To me it's easy to understand; malicious people will run amok for as long as they can get away with it. They enjoy disrupting and causing harm to others because it makes them feel powerful. Like the perpetrators of domestic violence and rape, online bullies have little or no impulse control and make themselves feel good by undermining the self esteem and safety of others.

Why do they do it? Well personally I don't care why they do it, I just want them stopped by whatever means available. After a long career in social work I do know that they always blame their victim(s). I doubt we would learn anything by asking them why they do it.

If they get away with it on one forum, they will be encouraged to spread their poison further.

[Terence Charles]

Hi, thank you to all who have responded to my concerns over the manner of placing a ban on one of the Forum's members.
I'll try to answer some of the points that have been made in the posts.

One further point I would like to make is that surely the very basis of any Forum is for there to be discussion between the members, not the process of preventing that.

PaulE It is very satisfying that there are currently discussion in place with the board to institute a formal process where this type of problem can be handled in a better, or more transparent manner.

PGB You write in your last post, just prior to copying the extensive agreement of members,

I am not sure where you are seeing this. Below is the full text of what every member agreed to BEFORE they joined up.

The reason I commented on Rule 8 is that you referred to it and wrote it out in full in your post. However the word Moderator had been removed from the ruling and replaced with the word Administrator.
This seemed a rather unusual and unnecessary step to take. Why?

I still feel that any action that was to be taken should have been taken by a Moderator, particularly as it appears that the comments from Lmunch are alleged to have been directed at you.
If this is correct then it makes it a very personal matter between the two of you and surely you would have been better advised to pass any decisions and action to the board for another member/Moderator to decide upon and take unbiased action.

Rath I do understand that there has to be rules, and there have to be people responsible for making sure that these rules are obeyed. I can't however agree that Lmunch's comments on the overall posts on the forum being substandard are in anyway "Similar" to threats of "Rape" etc.
Rath you picture the Moderators and Administrators as having roles similar to policemen on the Forum, and perhaps they are, but it is only in dictatorships that the concept of 'Justice Has To Be Seen To Be Done' is disregarded. (The courts are usually quite transparent.)

Enzed I understand your comments, however you seem to have had more information than I did about the identity of Lmunch. I could only see a vague similarity in the posts of LMunch and BettyBoop etc, in that they were caustic, but Betty's were targeted at an individual where Lmunch's seemed general complaints about the Forum's members in total.


I am not in any way against a disruptive or bullying person being warned and removed from the Forum. It is the way in which this effected that I question.

[AJ Konlucko]

Really, it is VERY simple, an administrator is ABOVE a moderator, anything a moderator can do, an administrator can also do (and more)

I am a bit over having my actions (which are backed by the moderators and administrators) questioned. This forum is ran the way it is ran, if you are unhappy with this, nobody is forcing you to be here. We are open and honest at the level we think we need to be. At times decisions are made which might not be supported by some of our members.

The moderators and administrators have discussions regarding various matters. Members are told what they need to know, I know this does not please you but it is the way it is.

The removal of this member (once their identity was confirmed) was not so much a new issues but follow on from the previous matter. We had banned them and they attempted to come back under a different name. Once this was confirmed I took the same action I would have expected any of the moderators or administrators to do which was to ban the member.

I don't know what else to say, you are unhappy a former member came back under a new name and was banned? We have a team of people who give up their own time to keep this forum going. It makes it hard when we have to waste this limited time trying to justify us taking the actions we need to take to protect the forum and it's members.

[Terence Charles]

PGB, I am aware that no one forced me to become a member of this Forum,

I elected to join, because it seemed at that time a harmonious well-run group of writers assisting each other run by competent administrators and moderators.

I guess what I attempted to express is that you appear to have taken an action which is again a repeat of one you have now taken three times.

A famous intellectual remarked about someone who repeats the same actions and expects different results from them each time!

It is not difficult to see that the actions you have taken are probably just what BettyBoop etc was seeking.

Again I feel that actions of this type of action should be considered and taken by a moderator, as this is their stated role, and they can do so dispassionately and with due process.. However as you so explicitly state

an administrator is ABOVE a moderator

I do suggest that when BettyBoop re-joins the forum under yet another alias you consider involving the Moderators even if they are BELOW you.