"Banned members amnesty" Topic

I'm not sure how many members have be banned for whatever reason or exactly when, but I wonder if it is time to consider an Amnesty for banned members, should they desire to be able to contribute and post again?

Any thoughts on this welcome?

I don't mind giving somebody a second chance, but I'd put them on a shorter leash for behavior before being banned again. Might not want to extend an amnesty to repeat offenders who were continually dawg-housed or previously banned multiple times. But for someone who wants to contribute civilly, why not give them a chance. And, of course, the bottom line is Bill knows why people were banned, and it comes down to whether or not he thinks they'll play nice. I'll trust his judgement. Just my .02c.

My guess is that most banned members have been given many opportunities to fall in line.

"Bust a deal, face the wheel."

No names, but those whom I can remember who were banned were frequently doghoused, usually for good reason, and were pretty distinguished for a lack of good manners when they were here. The forum was more active, but it wasn't necessarily better, unless you define "better" as generating outraged post and counter-post. They generated more heat than light, and were banned for a reason.

I agree with Nine pound round, well said.

"Just my .02c."

I thought your contribution was reasonable. You could probably value your opinion at more than one fiftieth of one cent. :~}

I don't have an opinion either way but I'd think many/most/all had moved on & returning, covered in glory or shame, is not on their agenda.

Any thoughts on this welcome?

Use your burner account or make a new one.

This is the Internet.

Totally in line with the comments above and not in a hurry to have to navigate around more drama.

If someone wants to return, they can always talk to Editor Gwen. We're pretty good on second chances.

We haven't banned many people lately, but those that we do mostly fall into the category of people who feel they should be able to complain about TMP on TMP. Constructive criticism is one thing, but a few people want to go on and on about how 'toxic' TMP is, or how our policies are all wrong (despite being voted on by the TMP community), or how TMP is all about hits and has no integrity, etc. Those people have made their minds up and want their soapbox, and seem bewildered when we ask them to leave.

All I can say is things are much better on TMP with much less personal attacks and snarky comments. One can actually write your opinion on something without being attacked, taken out of context or being belittled. I kinda like that.

There two former members I can think of that should be allowed back. The reason they should be allowed back is because they contributed their considerable gaming experience. Very knowledgeable about the period that I am into.

I also belong to other forms and there are a few exiles form TMP that have no idea what they did to be banished. They don't cause any problems on those forms.

I too agree with NP round.

Some folk see nothing wrong with their behaviour and thus they see no need to change. I fear that they would re appear here and continue identical behaviour.

Those who have moved to other forums probably enjoy the atmosphere more there. Good luck to them.

The loss of a few badly behaved posters helps others chat about gaming.
I find the forum more pleasant now. Much less "only my opinion is factually correct" types.

martin

I couldn't imagine wanting to come back to a site that banned me.

One takes the good with the bad I suppose. I am on several FB Napoleonic sites and I enjoy them. There are never any curmudgeonly pissing matches like can be found here. With that said, the quality of the information content on those sites isn't as good. The "Napoleonic Discussion" board here has provided me some of the best info on the period I have ever seen online.

Maybe the overt bad behavior is less now, but there is still a lot of passive aggressive verbal dueling going on. No, I'm not going to name names, you know who you are.

I also belong to other forms and there are a few exiles form TMP that have no idea what they did to be banished.

Also, nobody in prison is guilty. Very few people do something thinking, "wow, this is wrong".

I broke the TMP rules one time. I was given a warning (a polite one, actually), not a dawghousing nor banishment. We have been told that escalating reaction to breaking the rules is how it works and I have read the posts here of people railing about how receiving a warning with no other action was the the most heinous, repressive, and [you know what person they evoked]-like action imaginable.

There was a discussion about someone I despise for what I believe is genuinely deliberately harmful behaviour toward others. I jokingly wished that person dead. Jokingly. I also didn't think I was doing anything wrong. And I didn't think I broke the rules. But I was and I did. And I hope I apologized when I received the warning.

Whether or not this breaks the rules or would be punished on other fora is irrelevant to what happened here. There are a lot of places where you could get by with that. A lot that you wouldn't consider a "cesspool".

If someone's contribution is nugatory, I just stifle them. Usually I stifle people who always say the same thing and it's always beside the point.

There have been whole threads where on opening them I find all or most of the posts have been stifled out. From the bits that get quoted, it's normally evident that I've missed nothing.

If banned members were allowed back under a new handle, I imagine I would pretty soon find myself stifling all the same people again.

Statistically speaking, is the rate of dawghousings down? Has the population of active posters declined significantly?

I completely agree with 4th Cuirassier. There are a small number of people on here who consistently post utter rubbish. There is a 'stifle' function so use it. Why bother with bans – we're grown up enough to recognise who is an idiot.

You're saying these banned people are still alive? They didn't commit suicide for the shame? And they weren't stoned by their communities?

Kids these days.

What was that US policy,two strikes and you're out?

This is a wargaming website that we all love, with the aim of discussing wargaming along with miniatures, rules, military history, uniforms, weapons, battlefields, commanders etc, etc. It is about the past. Something that has already happened. Anything said here or varying viewpoints posted concerning past events and historical characters, will not change anything, it won't change history. Perhaps people need to be more thick skinned and not get upset so easily if someone dares offer a different viewpoint or disagrees with them, as if it is the end of the world. LOL

And as some members have pointed out, if you fear your viewpoints being challenged, there is always the stifle to hide behind. Personally, I prefer to hear other people's viewpoints and make my own mind up if I agree or disagree with them. I like learning and don't mind finding out I might have been wrong about something. But other people having a different viewpoint does not mean I am always wrong though. LOL

There has been some great information shared on this website, which I believe most of us appreciate. And it is always interesting to hear how people are getting on, what they have achieved, the games they have just played and miniature and game images displayed etc.

As can be seen by the varying comments on this topic, there are differing viewpoints. There always will be, on practically everything. The bottom line is that, as far as I am aware, there is no rule that states members must read every post and reply or make a comment about anything that had been offered within those posts, I feel that sometimes, banning people gives power to those banned. Rather than banning, I think more dawghouse might be a better solution. It's just a thought anyway.

Reasonable people can disagree. But they should be able to do it without name-calling, denigrating someone's intellect or lack of knowledge, dismissing them, ascribing malicious intent, or taunting them. It is a shame that there aren't as many knowledgeable people here to answer questions, but it's nice that the discussions are about the subject at hand, rather than the back-and-forth goat-getting.

Goat-getting only works if people allow the goat-getting, get to them. And I think perhaps some people allow it to get to them or use it as an excuse to try and push a member off the website.

One other point I will add: I don't know that, substantively speaking, we lost as much as we think we did. No names, but there was one now-banned poster who used to rise pretty consistently to the bait, and he offered a substantive comment on almost every thread on one topic. Now, as a boy, I had read a certain book on that topic, because it was the only thing readily available. I didn't just read it cover-to-cover, I wore out my first copy and had to buy a second.

I started to notice that when these posts popped up, the wording was immediately familiar. It got to the point where I would read the post, look at the book (WFH during the pandemic) and I could usually detect and confirm when the language that had been loosely paraphrased in ten minutes or less. It wasn't plagiarism, but it was very loosely disguised. I'm not questioning the poster's knowledge or learning: I'm just saying that he was pretty clearly regurgitating a received opinion with a fair degree of frequency, whenever a topic came up, to get in an authoritative-sounding opinion. This happened A LOT, and I only pick and choose – I don't hit every thread on every board.

This wasn't scholarship- it was an argumentative technique, and it clearly had more to do with positioning the writer in a debate with others. What's sad is that at one point, I Googled something and came across a TMP post from this same guy on this board, dated about ten or fifteen years previously. It was factual, insightful, and his responses were polite. I was really surprised, not least because some of the other posters were really flaming him. It inclined me toward a certain sympathy for him. Embitterment isn't a state, it's a process.

Did that guy benefit from ten years of that? Did the site? Was the damage reparable? I'd say no on all three counts. I think we all have a vested interest in retaining the sort of courtesy and mutual respect I'm sure we'd all display if we were face to face. Whatever we may think about the details and the interpretation, we are all deeply interested in the history, and I suspect most of us don't have many opportunities to discuss it face-to-face with too many other people who are as interested as we are.

@ 9PR

If I'm thinking of the same person as you, I went from finding his posts helpful and courteous to stifling him, as I think he went a bit potty in lockdown.

You used to be able to have a sensible exchange ten years ago, but latterly everything he asserted was rather odd, and everything anyone else said would be challenged with demands for citations. In one thread he misrepped something I'd said, I reminded him what I'd actually said, and he demanded a citation because apparently I wasn't a reliable source for my own words.

If you reasoned that Spain is south of France, he'd argue with you that you didn't have a cite. It was quite weird really because it was at right angles to normal thinking; you believe what you believe, but he didn't believe anything unless someone else believed it.

I think I know who you mean. If so, I'd amend your last statement as follows: "He didn't believe anything unless some/one writer who he believed in had said it."

Statistically speaking, is the rate of dawghousings down?

We don't keep stats on that, but my impression is yes.

Note that we also have banned members who return to TMP simply by opening new accounts. The amusing thing is that they have to obey forum rules, of course, or their new accounts will be banned. So what's the point, they could have kept their old accounts and simply respected the rules.

Was it clear though that they had broken the rules or is it just someone else's opinion that they did?

I still stick to the suggestion of a more stricter and longer dawghouse type of ban rather than a permanent or outright website ban. It is just a suggestion not a demand before anyone blows their top or gets offended or whatever! LOL

I think people who sign off with "LOL" should get a week's worth.

Luv' ya' John… :) xoxoxo

As a practical matter I don't see how amnesty would work? Would TMP have to reach out to the booted members, make the offer and explain the conditions? I would think Bill and his staff have better things to do. Wouldn't the better approach be to reach out to the former members, explain that you miss their presence here and ask that they apply for reinstatement?

I think you just leave things as they are. Banned members who sincerely want to come back should take it up with Bill. Encourage them if you miss them. A policy is not really needed. Case by case decisions by Bill. He knows the histories.

"..a week's worth"
Soft-hearted liberal!

ConnaughtRanger

"..a week's worth"
Soft-hearted liberal!

A slur on my Right-wing credentials…Do yer' job Bill! Give him a month, a short chain, dry biscuit, brackish water and a Neutering…

Was it clear though that they had broken the rules or is it just someone else's opinion that they did?

Editor Gwen usually tries to have a dialogue with the person to make sure they understand what the problem is.

Insightful post Nine Pound Round.

Bill N

As a practical matter I don't see how amnesty would work? Would TMP have to reach out to the booted members, make the offer and explain the conditions? I would think Bill and his staff have better things to do. Wouldn't the better approach be to reach out to the former members, explain that you miss their presence here and ask that they apply for reinstatement?

I got a routine Doghouse a few years ago and it was only after members highlighted where I had disappeared to (I had been kept off the site from 28th April to the 13 June 2018). Luckily, I still followed the TMP postings and read the post myself. The error had been noted and that it was brought to the attention of the powers that be (Gwen). So I posted this off to Gwen: "Is there a date at which time I will be allowed to post? Or am I banned for life?" This and the members highlight got me reinstated. So it makes me wonder if there have been/are others who have/are going through the same experience…

dibble

Yes, there were times when I only realised I was in the dawghouse was when I actually went to make a post.

Those offended by the use of LOL, should perhaps seek medical advice on how to ovecome their affliction. I'm sure such fears can be cured. LOL

Can banned members still read the posts and access the website? And how would they contact the editor?

I have been DH once and Band once in both events it was never explained exactly why. But Bill step in (thanks) and resolved both.

Gazzola

Please lighten up, it was a joke! As was my reply to ConnaughtRanger. I for one care not a jot what you post John, other than the spin you put in it.

Have you started this thread for a special friend? 'khhevin' Oh dear, sorry about the cough…

John! I was Dog-housed for an unspecified time. But but seeing as it went on and on (7 weeks in total), I thought that I had been banned for life. When it was mentioned in a thread, and it seemed, that it could have been in error, I contacted TMP who realised 'I presume' that I was left in the said dog-house unintentionally, though I did not realise this up to that time myself.

Has anyone else been 'DH'ed' for 7 weeks? Anyway. If it was up to me, I'd give a one-off amnesty.

Perhaps there were/are more who ended up in my situation?

Can banned members still read the posts and access the website?

You can read the site without logging in, so yes.

And how would they contact the editor?

Just like pretty much every site, there is a "contact us" thing at the bottom of the initial page (where it is for pretty much every site).

at the risk of glossing over things. Contact us satisfies a legal requirement.

dibble

Lighten up? I though the LOL at the end of my post concerning the posts targeting my excellent use of LOL would have indicated that I took any comments concerning using LOL with good humour. LOL

Contact us satisfies a legal requirement.

Not a legal requirement here, but we do provide the information.

Well, I don't think anyone appears totally against the idea of a 'banned member' amnesty, so I don't see any reason why one could not be considered?? It is not up to me, of course, it is not my website. But I feel some banned members might be more enthusiastic about posting again if there was one. They might see contacting and having to ask as a sort of begging, which I'm sure would not be popular with anyone. And I'm sure there are some missing members we'd all like to see contributing again.

Why don't you reach out to those people, and see if they are willing to come back and abide by forum rules?

I don't know all the members who have been banned or how to contact them, that's why I suggested an amnesty. Perhaps TMP could contact them and mention it?

Ben! the saying goes, If you want the dogs to stop yappin' throw them a bone.

dibble

As long as the bone has some meat on it! LOL

I think it's inarguable that the TMP post count has fallen, but AFAICT, what has gone is the noise rather than the signal. If you want to come here to pass the time or argue with someone, you're probably no longer in the right place. If you want to clear up a point of informational detail, or discuss something substantive, you will get responses here and you will get your discussion.

So in terms of utility, I would say we are better off without the trolls. Should I ever want to waste time having a shouty argument with an ignorant fanatic who doesn't change their mind, there is always Twitter.