What happened to the idea of a moderators-only section? I thought that was a good idea. If this is implemented in addition to an official policy, all the moderators who are online at the time can quickly gather and ideally reach a consensus before rash decisions are made and the order of the forum is turned upside down.
For those of you who haven't been here recently, this is how things went down:
The poster Chaimfan, in a thread about military solutions to the Gaza crisis, stated that the terrorist Arabs of Eretz Yisrael should be shot in the streets, the children killed, and the women raped. He then said that the Bible backs this up. Obviously, his absurd statement garnered general criticism.
The moderator Jeffguy left an ambiguously-worded post, in which he described that he was beginning to "question Chaimfan's position here." Chaimfan then reiterated his point.
Chaimfan got banned for a week by Jeffguy (and solely Jeffguy), on the basis of this post and because of past posts that have been retroactively deemed harmful to the forum. Never was Chaimfan warned on those past posts that they would go "on his file". He got a slap on the wrists and had to edit or delete some comments. There was no policy!
Allen-T wrote, at the time of the banning, "I would like to add that Jeffguy has made me aware of a problem with Chaimfan since about 2 weeks ago. Though I haven't personally gone over the postings in question."
It seems that Jeffguy has a long-standing problem with Chaimfan. Why couldn't this be worked behind the scenes? Why couldn't the two of them have a discussion?
Why couldn't Jeffguy show the 'offending' posts to Allen-T? The burden of proof must lay with the prosecution.
Further, Chaim personally likes Chaimfan! Do all of Chaimfan's quality posts go out the window because of some recent controversy? Why wasn't the line clearly drawn? If other posters can get away with equally offensive postings (there are many, and I can find them for you), why is Chaimfan punished? I don't believe that the more offensive comments are even bannable offenses anyway.
Several posters, including myself, argued that what Chaimfan said was wrong, but that he should not have been banned. Several moderators questioned his banning yet added said they 'understood' Jeffguy.
Our Chief Admin, Yacov, said he was unaware that a banning took place. He immediately questioned the banning. He then posted a poll, entitled "Should Chaimfan be banned?" Several posters and moderators objected to the poll, for various reasons. Yacov removed the poll.
Here is what the JTF Forum stipulates:
4. Threats and personal insults are not acceptable, and will lead to the banning of members who engage in such conduct. The administrators may decide to first provide a warning to any member making threats or personal insults, or may to decide to ban such members immediately [note, "immediately"-not arbitrarily weeks later...by the way, Chaimfan and Yacov had recently reached some sort of agreement on personal attacks and he has honored that agreement).
Now, you may ask, was Chaimfan posting a personal insult? No.
Was he posting a threat? No. He wasn't about to hop on El Al, take a machine gun, and start gunning down Muzzies. Nor was he encouraging, or inciting others do so. He was simply offering his interpretation of the bible. Some would say it was twisted, most would call it offensive, but few would call it a threat, and hence ban-worthy.
Was it bad judgment to push it as far as he did? I would say so.
2. In accordance with this goal (rule 1), the JTF Forum seeks to provide JTF supporters with the opportunity to express their views, to develop their debating skills, and to learn facts which may not be available elsewhere. JTF hopes that this experience will build new and effective leadership for both the Jews and the Righteous Gentiles in the struggle to save both America and Israel.
Chaimfan, as a JTF supporter, was merely expressing his views. Nowhere else on the internet can Chaimfan say that stuff he said on this forum for the last few months. I think we can all agree on that. Opponents of Chaimfan's views should debate him with facts and information.
For the most part, I have avoided conflict on this forum. Though I have been posting here since September, it's fair to say that I haven't pissed off too many people. I have watched this forum grow and for the most part, I have shown myself to be pretty mild mannered. If you feel I have personally slighted you in this thread or in any thread on this topic, I apologize. That wasn't my intention. However, no one is above criticism and in this case, there is a lot of it to go around.
It is my sincerest hope that those in charge will accept responsibility for this 'miscommunication' and will take immediate steps to rectify the situation. Chaimfan is owed a reinstatement and an apology. I am confident that by Sunday evening at the latest, he will receive both.
Poll
Topic: Poll: Should there be an official policy for warning and banning people? (Read 9656 times)