Govindia

Gov posted this and this, and they haven't been approved.

I'm not going to either, since they're just complaining about MadJack being appointed as a temporary hearing officer. He's asking where and when and why and OH THE CONSPIRACY! If he looked in that same thread he'd see McM and COE confirm he was appointed as THO.

So yeah. Sorry if you can't see the posts btw, I don't know how to link properly. And I read here somewhere if you weren't going to approve, post here.
 
Out of curiosity, how can someone on 100% warning level ever accrue another warning, since a moderator would have to approve the offending post, which obviously would never happen? Is it even possible for a member to be banned from the forum for rule-breaking?
 
Crushing Our Enemies:
Out of curiosity, how can someone on 100% warning level ever accrue another warning, since a moderator would have to approve the offending post, which obviously would never happen? Is it even possible for a member to be banned from the forum for rule-breaking?
Click to expand...
They can still be warned for the posts that need approved.
 
Well, "warned". It's pretty apparent that you basically need to kill someone and post the pictures on the forum to actually get banned from here these days.
 
Blue Wolf II:
Well, "warned". It's pretty apparent that you basically need to kill someone and post the pictures on the forum to actually get banned from here these days.
Click to expand...
So it would seem.

Though as I understand it, if we approve the offending post we can't act on it. *shrugs*
 
Crushing Our Enemies:
Out of curiosity, how can someone on 100% warning level ever accrue another warning, since a moderator would have to approve the offending post, which obviously would never happen? Is it even possible for a member to be banned from the forum for rule-breaking?
Click to expand...
Yes, that is the catch 22 of tnp forum moderation. I have pointed it out a number of times, including when hersfold setthe system up. I argued at the time that 100% warning should mean a ban, not moderation.

However, one problem is that we have no system for reducing a warning level. This seems to me unfair that relatively minor offences should have permanent consequences.
 
Blue Wolf II:
Well, "warned". It's pretty apparent that you basically need to kill someone and post the pictures on the forum to actually get banned from here these days.
Click to expand...
Not true. Several people have been banned from the forum. Generally for pornspamming or adspamming.
 
Why not adopt a moderation system similar to the NS forums? Give moderators a little more autonomy to assign punishments, with regard to user warning history, tenure, severity of the offence, etc, with no automatic punishments. If a user doesn't like it, allow a repeal, then a final repeal. Permanent bans get voted on by the full panel.
 
I have been dealing with medical issues of my own that required a change in medication so I could get a reasonable amount of sleep every night. It is not a new problem, but a problem that returned when my doctor changed a different medication for a different condition (pain...constant pain). Then that doctor had a medical leave involving emergency surgery that had him away from his practice for most of last year. I wasn't able to see him again to address my medications to handle sleep notwithstanding the pain until mid-January. I actually had no medication to use for two weeks because his office was closed from before christmas (due to a blizzard here) until after New Years, and then had to wait two weeks for my appointment.
So for the past month, I have been trying to catch up with fatigue that built up for a year and a half (a lot of sleep) with end of the year/beginning of the year paperwork) and trying to manage my medical conditions in a winter that has been very cold or very snowy or both.
I'm trying to get caught up with things, generally. I do pop in to see if there are any PMs that I need to read (which there haven't been) and sometimes, that's all the time i have.

As to what to do about Govindia, grow a pair, and make a decision based on the posts that the moderators are previewing. If some cross the line, proceed accordingly. If the consensus of the rest of you is the same opinion. Then act.

That's all I have to say on the matter, since I have not been seeing the posts that have to be previewed, and I'm not in a position to react to them.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
As to what to do about Govindia, grow a pair
Click to expand...
...

Well Flemmy, we waited at your request for Schnauzer to chime in and when he finally does, months later, he tells us to "grow a pair".

There is a lesson to be learned there, I do believe.
 
I know the only fair thing to do is to reduce Govindia's warning level by 20% if we are going to continue with the proposed changes.

My only problem is that he hasn't learned his lesson or seemingly learned anything from the various warnings or having to be on mod preview.

Numerous times on IRC I have asked him to stop or to not PM a given member about real life info etc and he has not complied. Asking questions is fine but he was warned for asking for real life info from Elu after being asked to stop, once before.

I am happy to post logs if the moderation team wants an example of this. I suspect that even if we reduce Govindia's warning level, he will probably end up being banned regardless so I guess my point is moot but I felt it provides context for future dealings.
 
As I said (In full)

As to what to do about Govindia, grow a pair, and make a decision based on the posts that the moderators are previewing. If some cross the line, proceed accordingly. If the consensus of the rest of you is the same opinion. Then act.

That's all I have to say on the matter, since I have not been seeing the posts that have to be previewed, and I'm not in a position to react to them.
Click to expand...

I don't think I could be any clearer. Since y'all are familiar with what Gov has been doing, it's not my purpose to do more than state what should have bee obvious whether I said a thing about Gov's status or not. Y'all have the facts, apply them to what I said. If what some of you is saying is accurate, then the course of action is clear.
 
Since Gov has been on indefinite mod preview, I have not observed any posts that I considered a TOS violation. If I had, I would have reported it and we would then discuss if the post merited a warning (read: ban). Should that be the case, I don't think any of us has a problem banning him. If anything, some are impatient for him to commit a final transgression. I, however, cannot condone banning absent any new violation. (It has nothing to do with my lack of the requisite pair. :P )
 
Great Bights Mum:
Since Gov has been on indefinite mod preview, I have not observed any posts that I considered a TOS violation. If I had, I would have reported it and we would then discuss if the post merited a warning (read: ban). Should that be the case, I don't think any of us has a problem banning him. If anything, some are impatient for him to commit a final transgression. I, however, cannot condone banning absent any new violation. (It has nothing to do with my lack of the requisite pair. :P )
Click to expand...
I am sorry, GBM, but your opinion does not count until you have grown a pair. Please get on to it as soon as possible and report back in when you are done.
 
Since I think we're supposed to take not of non-approved Gov posts here...

Govindia:
Govindia:
flemingovia:
I can't remember whether I thought this or not back then. Opinions change, and it really only occurred to me recently when I was chatting on IRC that all these interim elections are a bit much.

That being said, I do realise that if this common sense idea is adopted, it will become what happens whether I like the vice delegate or not. I am content with that.
Click to expand...
I honestly thought we had a line of succession for a reason rather than having to resort to special elections?

I mean, isn't that why we voted on lines of succession at least twice now?

What's the point in having one if someone isn't going to be acting [insert role here] if the Delegate or other post in the LOS left their post ?
Click to expand...
bump

MODEDIT: This will not be approved. There is never a reason to bump a thread at the top of the forum. The post has been read- if no one commented on it, it's because they chose not to. -COE
Click to expand...

I have nothing to say regarding the post itself that COE hasn't.

I don't think this post is worth putting Gov over the line though.
 
This post is frustrating

Govindia:
madjack:
Govindia:
It was the matter that Eluvatar and BW left without prior notice, and Eluvatar to this date hasn't given an explanation for why he left. If it was RL, the only one of the two who said that was BW, never Eluvatar.
Click to expand...
He was 'unavailable for online matters'.

That's enough of an explanation right there. You have zero right to any more information than Elu is willing to give.

Edit: Actually, Elu makes it pretty damn clear that it for RL matters right here
Click to expand...
I'm asking him, as he's running for delegate. Not you. I would like him to answer his question please.
Click to expand...

Govindia has been asked many times to drop this matter. I recall GBM telling him a couple of times in unequivocal terms to cut it out. He is continuing with this behaviour now. I do think that this demonstrates that he has not changed at all, and I find it unlikely that he will change.
 
I agree with McMasterdonia, and felt he was pushing towards a ban when he initially started that line of inquiry. I don't know why those posts were approved though... Regardless, it is the same issue he has been warned about multiple times by multiple admins/mods, I would favor his banning at this juncture.
 
mcmasterdonia:
This post is frustrating

Govindia:
madjack:
Govindia:
It was the matter that Eluvatar and BW left without prior notice, and Eluvatar to this date hasn't given an explanation for why he left. If it was RL, the only one of the two who said that was BW, never Eluvatar.
Click to expand...
He was 'unavailable for online matters'.

That's enough of an explanation right there. You have zero right to any more information than Elu is willing to give.

Edit: Actually, Elu makes it pretty damn clear that it for RL matters right here
Click to expand...
I'm asking him, as he's running for delegate. Not you. I would like him to answer his question please.
Click to expand...
Govindia has been asked many times to drop this matter. I recall GBM telling him a couple of times in unequivocal terms to cut it out. He is continuing with this behaviour now. I do think that this demonstrates that he has not changed at all, and I find it unlikely that he will change.
Click to expand...
Democratic Donkeys:
I agree with McMasterdonia, and felt he was pushing towards a ban when he initially started that line of inquiry. I don't know why those posts were approved though... Regardless, it is the same issue he has been warned about multiple times by multiple admins/mods, I would favor his banning at this juncture.
Click to expand...
Blue Wolf II:
I agree. He's had his chances, he's had his second chances, hell he's got to be on his eighth or ninth chance by now. Let us be done with this.
Click to expand...

In full agreement.
 
...So we're going full ban on Govindia?

If it was anyone else, I would argue against... however, he's had so many chances that even Michael Jackson had less chances and apologies. It's time for him to exit.
 
Given that it's me he's asking the same thing over and over again, and given that I'm (very) annoyed not distraught, I abstain on this question. I place my confidence in the rest of the moderation team to consider this.
 
I feel I have done everything I can to help Gov understand the rules. I know others on the mod team have tried as well. Despite our efforts, he continues to disregard our requests. I take no joy in saying it, but I believe this is indeed the end of the road for Govindia's membership on our forum.
 
I have to say, this particular post seems more annoying than final-straw-ban-worthy to me.

If this is the cause for the ban - hopefully this post was not approved - what's the reasoning we give him "you've done real wrongs, but this time we're annoyed by [link to post] and thus you'll be banned". I think he's made a number of posts that were much worse than this and not been banned.

This seems a little light to me.
 
punk d:
I have to say, this particular post seems more annoying than final-straw-ban-worthy to me.

If this is the cause for the ban - hopefully this post was not approved - what's the reasoning we give him "you've done real wrongs, but this time we're annoyed by [link to post] and thus you'll be banned". I think he's made a number of posts that were much worse than this and not been banned.

This seems a little light to me.
Click to expand...
It isn't exactly the content in the post. It is the fact that after repeatedly asking and telling him to drop this he keeps it up. This is a trend with him and it has come to the point where he has ran out of chances with this. In all honest he has been at this point quite some time now but we have continued to let out the rope and give him additional chances.

Continually repeating the same behavior after being told it is wrong at least a half dozen times shows that he is making NO effort to do what we have told him. The line needs to be draw somewhere and it has come to that point where we cannot continue to allow him to push the line.
 
Hileville:
punk d:
I have to say, this particular post seems more annoying than final-straw-ban-worthy to me.

If this is the cause for the ban - hopefully this post was not approved - what's the reasoning we give him "you've done real wrongs, but this time we're annoyed by [link to post] and thus you'll be banned". I think he's made a number of posts that were much worse than this and not been banned.

This seems a little light to me.
Click to expand...
It isn't exactly the content in the post. It is the fact that after repeatedly asking and telling him to drop this he keeps it up. This is a trend with him and it has come to the point where he has ran out of chances with this. In all honest he has been at this point quite some time now but we have continued to let out the rope and give him additional chances.

Continually repeating the same behavior after being told it is wrong at least a half dozen times shows that he is making NO effort to do what we have told him. The line needs to be draw somewhere and it has come to that point where we cannot continue to allow him to push the line.
Click to expand...
:agree:
 
Hileville:
punk d:
I have to say, this particular post seems more annoying than final-straw-ban-worthy to me.

If this is the cause for the ban - hopefully this post was not approved - what's the reasoning we give him "you've done real wrongs, but this time we're annoyed by [link to post] and thus you'll be banned". I think he's made a number of posts that were much worse than this and not been banned.

This seems a little light to me.
Click to expand...
It isn't exactly the content in the post. It is the fact that after repeatedly asking and telling him to drop this he keeps it up. This is a trend with him and it has come to the point where he has ran out of chances with this. In all honest he has been at this point quite some time now but we have continued to let out the rope and give him additional chances.

Continually repeating the same behavior after being told it is wrong at least a half dozen times shows that he is making NO effort to do what we have told him. The line needs to be draw somewhere and it has come to that point where we cannot continue to allow him to push the line.
Click to expand...
Sigh. GBM directed me to page 3 of this thread. I hadn't seen or recall having seen the PM exchange between her and Gov on this same subject 5 months ago.

Alsas...if Gov has (and he has) been told to stop asking the same question over and over on this subject and he is refusing to let it go, unfortunately I think an outright ban is the most appropriate step.

Wish it didn't have to come to that but looks like it must.
 
I'm probably not yet at the ban stage, despite this latest post. Like PunkD's earlier posts it seems a little light to me. However, I can see the history and context of the post.

Count me as an abstain.
 
I do think it's pretty light, to be honest, but taken in context with everything else, we just can't continue letting him off. We've given him his final chance and we've told him another infraction, no matter how small, will result in his banning.
 
I received a message from Eluvatar last night and I'm checking in because of that.

As I said the last time I posted, I'm going to leave this topic for the rest of y'all to decide and I will not be participating in the decision.
 
Considering that his most recent warning (on Nov 21, 2012) included this message:
This, literally, is your last chance. Any further posts that admin or moderators find an issue with will be reviewed by the team with a decision on whether to implement a permanent IP ban on your current and future user account(s) on these forums. If any admin finds that a particular post clearly violates forum rules and policies, including the Terms of Service and Terms of Use, they may go ahead and implement the ban without further discussion.
Click to expand...
I am in favor of a ban. "Last chance" means he doesn't get another one.
 
Remasked.

Here is the message I sent him on #thenorthpacific:

Govindia, following your repeated pestering of Eluvatar for details of his real-life absence from the forum, despite being told not to do so, the moderators have decided that you have exceeded your 100% warning level. You have been permanently banned from the TNP Forum.

Should new moderation rules come into effect, you may be eligible to appeal this ban in three years.
 
I felt it only fair to inform Govindia on IRC of the decision and the reasons for it. He did not take it well.

Regional Assembly governmental matters. If you want to talk about how Gov is still a bad person or whatever, visit #tnp
Topic set by Govindia on Thu Apr 5 14:56:07 UTC+0100 2012
<Flemingovia>: Govindia, following your repeated pestering of Eluvatar for details of his real-life absence from the forum, despite being told not to do so, the moderators have decided that you have exceeded your 100% warning level. You have been permanently banned from the TNP Forum.
<Flemingovia>: Should new moderation rules come into effect, you may be eligible to appeal this ban in three years.
+++ ChanServ has given op to TrevelyanL85A2
<TrevelyanL85A2>: flemingovia, I did not pester Eluvatar
<TrevelyanL85A2>: Nowhere did I pester Eluvatar about it.
<TrevelyanL85A2>: I simply pointed out that he did not give sufficient notice as to why he left. I did not pester him at all about it.
<TrevelyanL85A2>: flemingovia I request this ban be overturned as I did not violate the terms of the mod review.
<TrevelyanL85A2>: Furthermore, if new moderation rules came into effect my warning level would have been reduced to 80% rather.
<TrevelyanL85A2>: This is excess persecution from Eluvatar due to his repeated negative bias.
<TrevelyanL85A2>: I did not say anything wrong.
<TrevelyanL85A2>: THis is excess and grossly overreactionary harsh punishment on the part of both Eluvatar and mcmasterdonia
<TrevelyanL85A2>: due to their negative biases.
<TrevelyanL85A2>: I did not say anything wrong to warrant this ban from the forum.
<TrevelyanL85A2>: I request a right to appeal this ruling.
<Flemingovia>: You have no rights in this matter. It is decided.

<TrevelyanL85A2>: I did not say anything wrong. mcmasterdonia and Eluvatar are overreacting.
<TrevelyanL85A2>: I simply pointed out something and focused on other matters, as my posts have shown.
<TrevelyanL85A2>: I did not
<TrevelyanL85A2>: pester anyone flemingovia
<Flemingovia>: That was not the opinion of the moderation team. For the record, Elu abstained on teh matter, and was not the one to bring it up.
<TrevelyanL85A2>: I am once again requesting an appeal of this matter. I believe mcmasterdonia and certain members of the mod team are overreacting.
<TrevelyanL85A2>: I did not say anything wrong to warrant this ban.
<Flemingovia>: Your request is denied.
<TrevelyanL85A2>: On what grounds?
<Flemingovia>: If the new moderation rules come in you may appeal in three years. At the moment there is no right of appeal.
<TrevelyanL85A2>: mcmasterdonia overreacted because of his personal bias against me.
<TrevelyanL85A2>: I did nothing wrong.
<TrevelyanL85A2>: and it is grossly unreasonable to have to wait three years to appeal.
<TrevelyanL85A2>: Under the new moderation rules I should have my warning lowered to 80% per the retroactiveness.
<TrevelyanL85A2>: It is factually incorrect, Flemingovia, that I pestered Eluvatar. I DID NOT PESTER ELUVATAR.
<Flemingovia>: The new rules are not in force yet. ... If indeed they ever do come into play. There is still considerable debate about them.
<Flemingovia>: Do not shoutycaps at me.
<TrevelyanL85A2>: I did not pester Eluvatar therefore this ban is not justified.
<TrevelyanL85A2>: I simply voiced my opinion on something which I had a right to do so. I did not bother him about it.
<TrevelyanL85A2>: This ban is not justified as I did not pester him about it. If you saw my other posts I was more concerned about the UDL leak and that matter, than anything re: Eluvatar's past issues.
<TrevelyanL85A2>: mcmasterdonia is strongly negative biased against me and I believe this was done as a further attempt to persecute me as a result. This ban is excessive and grossly harsh Flemingovia.
<TrevelyanL85A2>: I did not pester Eluvatar.
<Flemingovia>: You were given many, many warnings and a great deal of advice about your behaviour. This has been a long time coming. You were told when your ban level reached 100% that "This, literally, is your last chance. Any further posts that admin or moderators find an issue with will be reviewed by the team with a decision on whether to implement a permanent IP ban"
<Flemingovia>: I do not expect you to regard it as fair, but it was a collective decision after a great deal of debate. And coming at the end of a long history of unacceptable behaviour. If you have sense you will learn from the experience.
<TrevelyanL85A2>: What, do I not have a right to voice an opiinion? If I feel that in my opinion, Eluvatar did not give sufficient explanation re: his absence, am I not allowed to voice my opinion? I wasn't pestering Eluvatar up at all.
<TrevelyanL85A2>: I was bringing up the fact that he had issues with disapparing repeatedly in roles and not being active in them, as others have pointed out.
<TrevelyanL85A2>: You said I pestered Eluvatar, and I did not.
<TrevelyanL85A2>: I have a right to voice an opinion on a candidate's ability as much as anyone else. I did not persist and pester.
<Flemingovia>: No you do not have the right. Your rights on the TNP forum are over. You are banned - permanently.
<Flemingovia>: And that is an end of it.
<TrevelyanL85A2>: Everyone on that forum has a right to voice their opinion Flemingovia
<Flemingovia>: You are not on that forum any more.
<TrevelyanL85A2>: I did not pester Eluvatar.
<Flemingovia>: And now I must go to get my son from school.
<TrevelyanL85A2>: That is fact.
<TrevelyanL85A2>: The ban is not jusitified Flemingovia.
*** TrevelyanL85A2 is now known as Govindia

<Govindia>: I did not pester Eluvatar Flemingovia, therefore this ban is wrong, and I request to appeal this.
 
An unsurprising result... I had a feeling this would be his reaction. Thank you very much flemingovia for taking the time to do this. It is much appreciated.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top