Administrative Decisions

[TotallyOz]

There comes a point when an admin has to make decisions to allow the board to move forward. Of our last 50 reports on threads, 42 have been about one poster. The moderators and I have read each one of them and discussed them and found few of them had any real issues other than anger and hatred for one poster. The vast majority of these "reports" were without merit and from a few posters with an agenda to get rid of a poster.

 

While we do not feel that that the poster has egregiously violated our rules, we do feel his presence here causes irreparable harm to the site and have thus banned him from the site.

 

We have a great group of posters on this site and hope that you will enjoy this site as we put a great deal of effort into making it a site for everyone to enjoy. Please try to welcome all members of the site and make them feel a part of "our family."

[Guest fountainhall]

I appreciate the admin's consideration and decision. May I, however, request one point of clarification so that there can be no doubt in the future.

 

The Posting Code states this -

 

"Egregious member conduct in external forums may give cause for Gay Thailand Message Center post-access privileges to be reviewed and revoked at Gay Thailand Management discretion."

 

Since some members do occasionally post on other Boards from time to time, often using the same 'name', might it be worth considering either a clearer definition of "egregious" or the use of a different word or phrase? As I understand it, egregious can mean "shocking", "conspicuously bad", "flagrant", but the synonyms can also include "glaring', "obvious" and "striking".

 

Or is this a case where we should be our own judges when posting elsewhere?

 

Thank you

[Guest timmberty]

yikes ... if posting elsewhere can get you banned from here .. i'll go get me coat now

[Rogie]

... if posting elsewhere can get you banned from here ..

 

Not a decision taken lightly I'm sure, and neither do I pen these words lightly, as the person concerned cannot answer back, so I risk the possibilty of flak.

 

The poster in question has been a loose cannon - not a hanging offence in itself. However, his latest shenanigans, running around like a headless chicken (albeit with a disembodied mouth happy to spew his own form of chicken s***) from message board to message board, quite frankly stank.

 

Not only did he arguably commit egregious member conduct, you can take your pick of which of these definitions of the word may apply to the man himself:

 

As I understand it, egregious can mean "shocking", "conspicuously bad", "flagrant", . .

[Guest thaiworthy]

If a poster was a member here under his original name and got banned, then re-joined with a different handle some time later, shouldn't that constitute an automatic ban, simply because it's the same person, with the same motives, the same writing style, etc.

 

If it walks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, isn't it usually the same silly duck?

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this true in the case of said duck? Amazing, really-- considering the help he received with editing for spelling and grammar. "Here, let me help you," then BAM you're banned. Inconsistent, or two different forces at work?

 

What happens months from now when the duck makes another appearance? Or is the change in management a factor here? When there is a change of ownership, is that a declaration of amnesty?

[KhorTose]

I have to join Rogie and Timmberty in thinking that some one who post under one name everywhere is being penalized by this rule for being honest about who they are. While I think that some good reasons could be found to ban this poster here for what he does here., I to do not like banning him for what he does on other forums. Just does not sound correct or fair to me. I too would like you to define what exactly constitutes a violation on this board by posting on another board. What is meant by egregious in your mind.

 

This is very personal to me as I was removed from Gaybutton's board when I let slip on another message board that Gaybutton used to recieve favors in return to doing various computer works for some of the Pattaya businesses.. This statement was and still is true and never denied, but he removed me from his board. If this is going to be the rule here, I to may leave just to honor the honesty of using the same board name everywhere.

 

I have no fondness for this poster, but I am surprised that this does not feel wrong to everyone here.

[TotallyOz]

KT, I do not like the decision at all but I do understand it. He was not removed only for his lack of conduct on other sites but for his constant time drain here. My suggestion to Scooby early on was to try to edit his posts for grammar so that others would not complain. (yes, I know silly that some called for his banishment due to lack of proper English posting) Editing his posts is sometimes easy to do and sometimes not so easy to do. Some of his posts are just unreadable and take a great deal of work or impossible to change to make sense.

 

Personally, I like the poster and think he posts some great content and I am OK with the mangled English. I have never understood why those that don't like his posting just ignore him and his posts. But, when the admins have to spend the vast majority of their time with issues with one posters, it is understandable they wish no to do this. I am sure this was not a one time issue but hundreds of smaller issues. If they had over 40 posts that were reported for rule violations, that in itself takes a great deal of time to discuss and deal with in the mod forum.

 

To my knowledge in 7 or 8 years this site has banned a total of 2 posters. That tells me that this site goes to enormous lengths to avoid this.

 

FH: "Egregious member conduct in external forums may give cause for Gay Thailand Message Center post-access privileges to be reviewed and revoked at Gay Thailand Management discretion."

 

This was written by me many years back and the word I thought people would concentrate on was MAY. Then, at the Management's discretion. It gives the admin the ability in ALL cases to make decisions. It puts the decision totally in the hands of the admin and not a group consensuses. It was also intended for those members who were posting things that would put other boards in legal proceedings. This has not happened with any posters that I am aware of on any board related to Gay Thailand.

 

There is no easy way to run or moderate a message board. It is a hard task but when decisions are made, even if we don't agree with them, we should give a bit of leeway to the admins as they know about the issue then we do.

[Guest fountainhall]

I have made no disguise of my dislike of the posting style and some of the content of the poster who is the subject of this discussion. Rules are rules and I think every Board owner is entitled to set his own rules. He pays the piper and he can call the tune. Surely that is self-evident. It is then up to posters to decide if they wish to post within the rules.

 

The word "egregious" does concern me. It's not the only place it occurs in the Posting Code. Later there is this sentence -

 

"As in any Pub or Tavern, an egregiously abusive or chronically problematic customer (member) shall be banned from further post participation"

 

In this case, I would assume that Scooby's comment about a presence causing irreparable harm to the Board falls more under this regulation - "chronically problematic". And let's be honest. That particular poster did indeed fit that description, however many positive comments he may have made in a few posts.

 

Thaiworthy also has a good point. We have been told - although I have absolutely no evidence of this - that the concerned poster had been banned from this site in the past - for what reason, again I do not know. On what grounds, therefore, was that ban rescinded, since I can see nothing in the Posting Code which permits this?

 

As to posting on other Boards, I can see that this clearly is problematic. Other Boards have different regulations, different objectives and different styles. Understandably what is acceptable on one may not be acceptable on another. I post occasionally on other Boards and always use the same 'name'. I think and hope that my posting style rarely differs whichever forum I post on, but that's just me. I know it is not universal. So a definition of "egregious" or a tightening up of the wording would surely be beneficial to all posters.

[Bob]

While I think that some good reasons could be found to ban this poster here for what he does here., I to do not like banning him for what he does on other forums.

 

While I wholeheartedly agree with your first point, I don't agree with the assumption you make in your second. Scooby doesn't say that the guy was banned here because of what he posted elsewhere. He was banned, as Scooby said, as the owner/moderators determined that he would ultimately cause harm to this website.

 

And he's proven here (and, admittedly, elsewhere) that he's earned that treatment. He's been banned on most of the other gay websites under both the LMTU handle and other guises and, importantly, let's not forget that what Scooby has done now is at least the second time he's been banned from this very website (a prior owner banned him too - for very good cause in my opinion - and that's why he returned here under his new guise).

[Guest fountainhall]

It is a hard task but when decisions are made, even if we don't agree with them, we should give a bit of leeway to the admins

 

Sorry Michael, you made your post before I posted mine, and I did not read what you wrote.

 

I entirely agree that the admins have to have some leeway. As I stressed earlier, it's their Board and they have the right to make the rules and then interpret them in a case such as this.

 

But I still think there is a need to look at the wording. Surely it is only fair to posters that they are able to check the Board Policy and Posting Guidelines so that they know more exactly where they stand? In this case, I have pointed out another "regulation" which the banned poster violated. And I think that is much clearer. What surprises me is that, unless the wording has changed with the new owners (and I believe it has not), this other regulation could - and should - have come into play with the poster Beachlover who was almost universally loathed on this Board (as on all others). Yet, he was permitted to continue posting even after many complaints had been made both on the Board and by pm. And then suddenly - many months later, he's off. To use Khun thaiworthy's analogy, he was far and away the biggest duck in the pond. If anyone was a "chronically problematic customer", surely it was that foul figment of someone's imagination?

 

However, that is history. What I believe those who have commented here hope to see in future is that cases such as the two I have mentioned do not create the same sort of problems in future. We all know that hydras, trolls - call them what you like, will appear. Some must be obvious in the first posts. Others will develop personas and gradually reveal themselves over time. I think we all hope that those who are indeed over a period of time "chronically problematic" can be weeded out without a sort of mini revolt. (And I know that itself is problematic, for there is the ever-present danger that the tail then starts to wag the dog. But that's anther issue!)

 

My suggestion to Scooby early on was to try to edit his posts for grammar so that others would not complain . . . Some of his posts are just unreadable and take a great deal of work or impossible to change to make sense.

 

And I have to say sorry again, because I think it is utterly ridiculous to permit someone to post gobbledygook and then have the mods clean up his pathetic English just to make it more comprehensible! Where does that end? I readily acknowledge that brevity is not one of my stronger points - and I will try and do something about that in future. But are the mods going to step in and edit my posts so they are more readable to those with a very short attention span? I know it's a ridiculous idea. But no more ridiculous than what they were trying to do with HeyGay's posts.

 

If any poster wishes to post on a message Board which uses English as the language of communication, surely that poster has a responsibility to post in at least reasonable English? We know that some posters here are not English, and in general they post excellent easily readable English (better even than some native English speakers ).

 

Why on earth should someone who was born in England, whose native language is English, who - as we had been informed - actually taught English in Thailand for a while, why should that poster have the right to post nonsense posts? Worse, in my view, why should the mods help him by virtually encouraging that nonsense style of writing through going to the bother of checking all his posts and then editing them? That really does smack of authoritarian rule. I'm sorry because you say you know and like the poster. That being the case, I'd suggest you would have done him a better service by persuading him to cease his pathetic mangling of his native language and writing instead like a reasonably normal person.

[Guest]

For simplicity, the following rule gives the management the flexibility to ban members:

 

"Message Center post privileges may be terminated without prior notice at the discretion of the Management"

 

As stated above, this site doesn't frequently terminate membership.

[TotallyOz]

When I ran the board, I know I had at least 2 moderators resign directly because of him. One because I would not ban him from the site and the other, well, for the same reason. One moderator returned when his previous handle LMTU was removed and the other not only never return but has rarely posted since. IMHO that pretty much says all that is needed to know about history. That tells you how much drama surrounds one poster. That is why I understand this decision. It was a real pain the ass back then and it seems things haven't changed much since then.

 

My suggestion is that when someone is banned they can't return under any other names. Once a decision is made, be done with it. That said, you can't just ban someone based on the "assumption" they are a previous poster on this board or another poster on another board. You need some evidence.

[Guest fountainhall]

Sorry Z, I don't agree. Yes, the management needs some flexibility. But posters cannot operate in a vacuum. If that happens, then you are likely to end up with something like a Board I have been asked (and agreed) not to mention here again. I happen to think the present Code has worked very well for many years. But we have had a couple of cases where the rules have been proven, in my submission, to require a bit of review. Now, I suggest, would be a good time to do that.

 

Let's remember what the full regulation I quote in Post #8 above actually states -

 

"That Message Center members shall be expected to behave as adults is not an undue burden. The expected conduct standard for the Gay Thailand forums is the same as that observed everyday in society by adults in our neighborhoods, towns, and cities. It is based on straightforward mature behavior, civility and courtesy that you find in a neighborhood Pub or Tavern where neighbors and acquaintances joined by occasional strangers come together to socialize in good temper, to share conversation, and to hoist, in moderation, a glass of favorite beer or wine or a cup of coffee or tea. These forums are NOT presented for abusive arguing and name calling, score settling, thread stalking, or general cyberspace blood sport for the chronically bored. As in any Pub or Tavern, an egregiously abusive or chronically problematic customer (member) shall be banned from further post participation"

 

Now that to me is very clear - and sums up the huge majority of posts on this Board over many years. Sorry, but no-one can ever convince me that Beachloer and HeyGay/LMTU posted "like adults" and that their posts illustrated "straightforward mature behavior, civility and courtesy"! Surely not even Michael can agree with that! As the rules stand, therefore, they were broken a long time before the posters finally disappeared.

[Bob]

My suggestion is that when someone is banned they can't return under any other names. Once a decision is made, be done with it.

 

Sounds logical to me. One supoosedly isn't banning a name but is banning a poster for his behavior. Many of us who have been around for years almost immediately spotted the new guise (HeyGay) of LMTU and some of us were dumbfounded he was allowed to roam the halls again. We "knew" (based on both his prior behavior here as well as his antics and bannings elsewhere) in our hearts where this would all end up. So it comes as no surprise at all. My only regret about any of this is that his forced departures from various boards have at times ended up with comments and even threads which owners/moderators might view as less than favorable to them. In my view, if the owners or moderators were at "fault" at all, it was for being overly generous with the latitude they gave him. Pretty hard to criticize them for that!

[Guest fountainhall]

When I ran the board, I know I had at least 2 moderators resign directly because of him. One because I would not ban him from the site and the other, well, for the same reason. One moderator returned when his previous handle LMTU was removed and the other not only never return but has rarely posted since. IMHO that pretty much says all that is needed to know about history.

 

Given all the grief caused earlier, why on earth was it decided to let LMTU return as HeyGay? I find that all but incomprehensible. I agree with the earlier comment, if someone is banned, then that should be it.

 

PS: But I should add that since banning would be permanent, there should prior to a ban be a series of warnings about a poster's conduct so that time is given for the conduct to be changed if the poster so wishes.

[Guest]

When I ran the board, I know I had at least 2 moderators resign directly because of him.

One moderator resigned after you were running the board too.

 

My suggestion is that when someone is banned they can't return under any other names. Once a decision is made, be done with it. That said, you can't just ban someone based on the "assumption" they are a previous poster on this board or another poster on another board. You need some evidence.

I agree banned posters should not be allowed to return under new names.

Regarding the evidence, I don't see a problem. It is very obvious that Snapshot is Beachlover (for example) - everyone knows it and some of his material is near identical to Beachlover posts on another forum.

Also it will be clear if you know who returns again.

We don't need a level of proof that would stand up in a criminal court, because the board has a rule which allows people to be banned at the discretion of the management. So the moment people start posting in the style of banned members, their membership can easily be terminated.

[TotallyOz]

Given all the grief caused earlier, why on earth was it decided to let LMTU return as HeyGay?

 

It is often hard to determine and when heygay came to the board, it was not know that this was him. Then, after a hundred or so posts it was decided that he was not causing issues and to try to moderate him. Perhaps not the best decision but it was the decision.

 

All I can say is that if anyone has strong beliefs on moderator decisions, they should volunteer to be one. The site always asks for more mods but few volunteer as they know it is not an easy job. It is always easy looking from the outside.

[Guest fountainhall]

it is not an easy job

 

On this I agree 100%! I think it must also be enormously frustrating, especially when a mod is also a poster. Clearly gaythailand has been very fortunate in its mods.

 

Many of us who have been around for years almost immediately spotted the new guise (HeyGay) of LMTU . . . (based on both his prior behavior here as well as his antics and bannings elsewhere)

 

I have read on a couple of Boards that the only way of identifying posters is their ip address. Is that the case? If so, then isn't it easy to use a proxy server to sneak back. If that is the case, then surely the point made by Bob and z909 about recognising style of posts should play a greater role in sniffing out those who have been banned and return. If a poster adopts a different posting style, then it becomes more difficult. But when a banned poster reverts to previous ways, it should be a lot easier, I'd think.

 

And whilst on the subject of ip addresses, another Forum has just posted a list of multiple ip addresses for four of its members. The poster named LMTU has posted on that Board from no less than 20 ips! How does one stop that?

[TotallyOz]

If that is the case, then surely the point made by Bob and z909 about recognizing style of posts should play a greater role in sniffing out those who have been banned and return.

 

Bob is fortunate to spend time on other boards and know the posting style of many posters. I am not. I never have been and others are not. I have read GayButton's posts for years on this board and if he registered under another name, I would not recognize it.

 

I visit the others boards once every two weeks or so when I am in Thailand and even less when I am away. It would be impossible for me to recognize anyone from another board. And, I have a hard time even recognizing posters here if they were to register under a new name.

 

Sure, if a poster registers and keeps talking about alpha males being superior to every other bar boy type then I might have a guess as to who it is. But, hell, if I might have made some of the same posts if I would more open to offending others. After all, don't we all really go to the bars only to find hot alpha males? I know I do.

 

[Guest fountainhall]

I was not clear enough. I meant the style of posting only on this Board.

 

As for alpha males, well I suppose it depends on my mood at the time, variety being the spice of life

[Guest thaiworthy]

I would not recognize it.

 

You don't have to. Trust in your membership, or at least the consensus of opinion. LMTU for most was easy to spot. Khor Tose nailed Snapshot straight away.

[TotallyOz]

You don't have to. Trust in your membership, or at least the consensus of opinion. LMTU for most was easy to spot. Khor Tose nailed Snapshot straight away.

 

Sorry TW, no board should run by trusting a consensus of opinion over matters regarding board decisions. That is why we have moderators. The Mods and the Admins are the ones to make that call. Do you know how many times members have been totally wrong about new posters? I can tell it for a fact, it is often. Most members are very skeptical of new members. I am not sure why, but it is the same on all boards.

 

I liken this to a conviction to murder. It is better to let 100 guilty men free than to convict one innocent. Err on the side of caution. IMHO

[Guest thaiworthy]

I liken this to a conviction to murder. It is better to let 100 guilty men free than to convict one innocent. Err on the side of caution. IMHO

 

LOL. Like 12 Angry Men. So maybe you have a point there.

 

But I was talking about unmasking identities anyway, I certainly didn't mean lynch mob.

[Guest terrychris]

LOL. Like 12 Angry Men. So maybe you have a point there.

 

Maybe he does,maybe he does.

[Guest jomtien]

You are all boring me to death and I'm banning the lot of you under the theory of Home Court Advantage.