Go to Community Help
- Add a comment
- Go to DKNOWLES
He should not have been banned
posted by
Midi
on January 29, 2004 at 11:07 AM
| link to this | reply
Guilty by Accusation
Like many corporations in America, it's easier to remove a problem than deal with it. According to Shaycom, it seems there were at least a couple of complaints. It seems that rather than clouding the issue with all the facts, removing the member based on accusations is the protocol.
I spent over twenty years in a management position with a very large corporation, with as many as 60 people reporting to me. I dealt with complaints abot people often. I was often asked, "What are you going to do about it?" My answer, always, was "How the hell should I know? I only have one side of the story."
And when it WAS justified, I'd deal with the problem to get it corrected...not removed.
I thought the whole week's episode was pretty assinine, but it's isn't like I'm forced to read things here. The man was a customer, remember?????
posted by
mark2556
on January 29, 2004 at 10:17 AM
| link to this | reply
It seemed so fast
Maybe dk hasn't shown us the previous warnings from what we have seen, his first warning was censorship and the second was banning, which happened on the same day. It didn't seem like he had time to take any corrective action. Like I said, I don't know if BN sent previous emails telling him that he was crossing the line but if they didn't, this seems harsh.
If I ever overstep the bounds, I would like to be told and given a chance to show that I can rein myself back in. To say that he was warned for name calling and then banned for criticizing the decision doesn't seem to follow this rule.
As a sergeant, if I can't warn a guy about being late and then write him up when he bad mouths me at break. I can warn him about the bad mouthing and then if he continues, then I can write him up but the two can't fall under the same warning because they are different violations.
I think that to put everyone's mind at ease, BNStaff should tell the measures they took to bring dk into line. We don't need to know who tattled, they need to be protected (maybe a BN witness relocation program is in order 
). This isn't just about dk who everyone agrees is a nice guy, it's about what we can expect when someone wants to complain about us. I plan on being here for years and eventually someone is going to email the BN and say I'm rude or something. What can I expect when that happens?
posted by
SuccessWarrior
on January 29, 2004 at 10:04 AM
| link to this | reply
BB, I agree, overreaction.
posted by
Ariala
on January 29, 2004 at 9:52 AM
| link to this | reply
to BN
The conduct policy is perfectly clear in general. How it has been applied to particular people who have been banned is not, and never has been. Without knowledge of how the general principles are applied in particular circumstances leaves people both in the dark and angry.
posted by
pg_scott
on January 29, 2004 at 9:46 AM
| link to this | reply
I think the banning was an over-reaction
posted by
beachbelle
on January 29, 2004 at 9:39 AM
| link to this | reply
yes
posted by
Midi
on January 29, 2004 at 9:36 AM
| link to this | reply
THIS IS A HUGE MISTAKE . . .
Dknowles calles someone a 'meathead' or 'Virgin_Dolt' or like name or even suggests in fun that the Word Police are 'stupid' and gets yanked of the BN . . . However it seems perfectly okay for others to use profanity called people 'M----- F------' and using every other vile word known to man and they get rewarded. People put their opinion out in public and expect to get a reaction, what exactly is new about that. Last time I checked we were able to call our own President a meathead or dolt or even stupid without losing our citizenship. Somebody wrote the BN and complained and you see what happened. Well people are now writing and saying what happened was wrong. Will we see any action about this?
posted by
WordSmith
on January 29, 2004 at 9:27 AM
| link to this | reply
Making fun of made up names!
If that's all this is over, I think it's really juvenile! Dknowles is?was? a great player here on the BN. I don't understand if so many people here have created a fictional or alternate pesona to write under, why should it matter if someone uses play on words in jest? I think the whole thing was taken a little too seriously.
No, I do not think Dknowles should be banned.
posted by
sparkietheduck
on January 29, 2004 at 8:34 AM
| link to this | reply
cheap-women
To allow everyone to participate on BN, we do our best to provide a Conduct Policy and Terms of Use that are as clear as possible. To read these, please click the links at the bottom of any page.
To protect the privacy of people who report violations as well as that of other members, we cannot publish specifics regarding a particular case. However, we certainly regret having to suspend members, and it is typically not for a single violation.
Please do let us know if you see violations of BN policy. There are over 200,000 posts and comments on BN, so we cannot monitor each one, but we work hard to respond to each violation report in a timely manner.
posted by
BlogitStaff
on January 29, 2004 at 8:27 AM
| link to this | reply
We have seen so much more serious name calling here.
Please explain why DK was banned. He is a dear friend and only wrote in fun. ??????
Others here have written offensive post but remain here. ????
posted by
cheap-women
on January 29, 2004 at 7:41 AM
| link to this | reply
Not enough facts . . . .
I would certainly support either side, depending on the facts. I have seen few facts of banishments or reasons for doing such. With evidence at hand, it copuld well be that either side is correct. I do, however, tend to side with the owners of the BN site. This site is a cyber-form of private property, much like a privately owned shop or theater. As such, owners can, and should, choose who they want and what constitutes unacceptable behavior. Actually, cyberspace is much more liberal in this than stores or theaters, but that's the best analogy I could think of.
It would be good, and this may well be the case, if the rules and expectations of users were clearly deliniated, along with well-publicised sanctions for not following those rules or meeting those expectations. It would also be good if there were a system of warnings to those not following those rules or meeting those expectations. Since we are not privey to e-mail received by other users, this, too, may or may not have been done.
As BN users, we have decisions to make as well. If we are not satisfied with the site management, or feel we are not getting value in return for mony spent, then we can always choose not to review. In my case, it would be akin to asking an alcoholic not to get a refill for his depleted liquor cabinet, but, still we have a choice.
As a user not familiar with any other user, I would hesitate to support any such user, particularly with a lack of facts. I alwasy keep in mind that the people whose writing I see on the net are very likely not the same personality they portray themselves as. Back in the "old days" of computer bulletin boards (I ran a WWIV board for many years; great fun!), I had to boot off one of my best friends for the verbal havoc he was creating. It seems that when using a pseudonym, he became very verbally abusive and enjoyed baiting other users of my board. In person he was very nice, caring and intelligent. Under his assumed name, he turned into a monster. After several warnings, I just booted him off.
Finally, it would be nice for the site operators to set up some sort of "jury" of a variety of users to decide on issues involving serious sanctions, such as banishment. Perhaps the useres awaiting sanction could present their cases to such a group, with the site operators acting as a prosecutor to support their contention. As I said, it would be nice to do something of this sort, but since this is a privately owned site, not necessary.
posted by
archiew
on January 29, 2004 at 7:20 AM
| link to this | reply