SANParks.org Forums

What would you think of a mite that looks at the evidence and the discussions that the moderators have between them, might even participate, but does not have a vote. This way there will be someone that can attest to the discussions and certify that it was fair towards the mite (like a union representative)? I still think, at the moment, there is not many mites that can sit in a role like this. We all have our opinions and have a certain idea of what other mites are like through our interactions on the forums and in person.

What would be the benefit for all forumites to know who is banned?

I think that we should all accept that the mods "slaan die kitaar" "finish en klaar" Look at how much time and effort have been spent by a lot of people (including me), on posting, quoting other people, picking a fight with someone, accusing the mods, accusing other mites, accusing SANParks etc etc. Then look back and answer this, was all this worth our while? Have we succeeded in what we intended to achieve, or were there more casualties than winners? Decide for yourself.

If you want a name, I think that TheunsH would be a perfect candidate. He is a lawyer, is very calm and balanced, not a "hot head" and has never made a post not according to the rules. I am sure he has the respect of everybody on the forums. Not so his darling wife, but that has nothing to do with his qualities

Ja, but he married his wife so I would question his judgement.

Well I for one, would question his judgement, after all, he support the Blue Bulls

My feelings are,
all that is needed is a simple thread where it is stated Forumite X Banned for however long and the Rule # transgressed, nothing more, nothing less and no further correspondence entered into.

I am not sure where this would be slotted into but if it had a separate forum/area of the forum, then those mites who have no desire to go there or know such things, need not and can carry on in the topics they feel comfortable with.

Elsa, I agree with you, keep it simple. Maybe just :

Forum Name
Length of Ban
Exceeded the amount of transgressions as per Forum Rules

I think that any forumites put up as a form of ombudsman might be cast in an uncomfortable light as a "mod pet" by some.

To me the biggest reason to publish the names is to show how very rare banning is. You don't have to look hard to find perceptions to the contrary. Facts are better.

I should stay out of here .. I should stay out of here ... I should stay out of here



What on earth is every one on about ?
We have 7 or 8 perfectly capable FORUMITES who also happen to be mods who are perfectly capable of reading and applying rules. Why is it so difficult ?

I really don't think we need to know the names of the "naughty children" sent to the corner either. It was their choice ultimately -- and their responsibility.

Just trying to find middle ground. I for one am perfectly happy with the moderators and the way warnings are dealt with. There seems to be a few mites that would prefer someone other than a moderator also involved in the case of a banning. What we don't see, and what we don't need to see, is what happens when the moderators have their meeting to discuss a possible sanction against a mite. For me personally, we don't need to know what is said and what is happening. But there has been suggestions that certain mites have been targeted, and this is why it would be good to see who has been banned and the rule number they have transgressed. That would hopefully stop the talk of vendettas against mites.

This is very much a trust issue. Do the forumites trust our moderators? If they do there should be no problems when we hear about a sanction against a mite. Publishing the names of those few who have been banned gives the mites a chance to see what has happened to a certain mite if he has gone quiet, not so much shaming him but letting the other know what has happened.

Mites, there will be no panel
The mods are in fact cool people and we first discuss with a member about his/her postings

Pre-warnings and banning are all in a later stage.
And its an old saying but every member is important to the forum
We never just ban somebody because we like to so
Its always a sensitive discussion between the mods

And I still don't know why all mites should know someone is banned. That person knows it and the mods knows it. Besides that, I think that it's against a universal law. Also a nickname is a part of someone identity. Showing their names is like putting someone on a pillory.

Can anyone give me one good reason why we should know who is banned, because after reading this thread I still haven't seen one.

As said before I don't understand the purpose of this thread either.

Possibly it has some relation to the "Be careful what we lose" thread, where I/we went to great lengths not to have "banning" mentioned...

I just thought it would be nice to say thank you to those that had contributed.

Yes, banning was rare, and yes, adults reacted personally to warnings and decided to leave or take banning as an alternative while disputing their cases.

Maybe some here should sit back and imagine receiving a warning that is put rather bluntly in simple rule terms, and not really knowing what for?

I think that warning should be a lot more detailed, for a start?

And no, the mods are perfectly capable of doing that without outside help, I think!

Micetta, RT and Billyf (to a certain extend) -