My li'l teeny corner of the Midwest agrees with New England. I could just
possibly understand if some sort of physical threats were made. But
absolutely nothing was said to warrant banning *any*body. Sometimes, tho,
it seems to me as if that's the way the entire country seems to be headed,
so I can't say as I'm surprised.

~~ Mosey ~~

-----Original Message-----
From: letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of Drew Family
Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2005 10:15 PM
To: letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [LbNA] Ban banning


Margaret and I both hate this "banning" thing that happens sometimes on
letterbox-usa, and have ever since the first person was banned, a
gentleman from the Pacific Northwest four or five years ago. We think
that it was wrong then, and it's wrong now too. Moderating,
sure. "First post" moderation keeps a surprising amount of pornography
and spam off the list, and sometimes even members need to be cooled
off. But this fruitless banning, give it a rest.

Jay in free speech lovin' New England







Yahoo! Groups Links

I think that there may be some instances where banning a user would be
warranted, however it should be used as a last resort. Frankly, I was
surprised to hear that was the course of action taken in this case.

The whole idea of banning is kind of pointless as the banned user can
easily rejoin with a new name, as was done in this situation.

And now back to letterboxing...

SpringChick


--- In letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com, "Drew Family"
wrote:
>
> Margaret and I both hate this "banning" thing that happens sometimes
on
> letterbox-usa, and have ever since the first person was banned, a
> gentleman from the Pacific Northwest four or five years ago. We think
> that it was wrong then, and it's wrong now too. Moderating,
> sure. "First post" moderation keeps a surprising amount of
pornography
> and spam off the list, and sometimes even members need to be cooled
> off. But this fruitless banning, give it a rest.
>
> Jay in free speech lovin' New England
>

I have been off list for some time, but decided to go back over the
last several days in the archive. I realize that the message, that
caused the banning could have been removed, but didn't see much on
the list that could be considered "that" offensive. If it
was "putting SpringChick in her place", then maybe this ban was a
little hasty. That post was so far out of line that it was
laughable, not banable. I didn't see anything that was nasty to the
point of tossing someone. Several posts could be considered stupid,
inconsiderate, poorly thought out, but if that was the criteria then
why only one gets the boot? While I'm not in favor of elimination of
banning, I certainly think there should be a pretty high standard
that should be reached for such an action. Being stupid and
inconsiderate may not reach that standard. People that can not
discuss a topic civily are in the end their own worst enemy as their
point of view gets lost in their emotional responses, and is posted
for the entire list to see. Those responses that are poorly written
reflect on the writer, and not necessarily on the subject at hand.
We all should have the right to look stupid if our posts come across
that way. If there is a new letterboxer posting on this list, and
taking a point of view that is away from the norm why not answer the
question and then refer him or her to the Newboxers list and various
sites that pertain to the subject? Let them research the answer
themselves.

Don

--- In letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com, "Drew Family" wrote:
>
> Margaret and I both hate this "banning" thing that happens sometimes on
> letterbox-usa, and have ever since the first person was banned, a
> gentleman from the Pacific Northwest four or five years ago. We think
> that it was wrong then, and it's wrong now too.

So that would mean then that if this gentleman subsequently banned
people on his web site that that was wrong too. Right?

Personally never and advocate of censorship but very intolerant of
hypocrisy.

I am not for banning anyone but sometimes we have people who do
not play by the rules (Rules being all of us) A guy in the Geocaching world
"Dreagon" here in Cincinnati, one day did not get his way. After being upset
at Mark the sysop of a website, (He Waited till Mark) left for Iraq, Then he
went after his wife and ended up calling her a (B) in a public! fourm. (Not in a Private E-Mail) But where everyone could read it.

Needless to say NO ONE was happy with him. And were sure when Mark
comes home he will want to talk about this with him LOL!

Sometimes we have people like this where you have no choice but to ban them.
You give them chance after chance (As we did. We had 4 different people talk to
him) and he just kept it up. When does it end, When everyone gets sick of it and
finds another hobby all over one person?

Sometimes you have to take that next step and do away with the problem so
the hobby can be fun to the whole. BUT! I think we should all vote on it. Dreagon
was put to a vote and after a 62-1 vote to ban him, it was done. Also if
he comes forward and says he sorry the ban will be lifted. I know no one
wants to ban anyone but no one wants to logon to trash talk. Your in the hobby
to feel good and find a box in the woods.

I also do not think a few people should have the power to ban someone but the group as a whole should. The group can act as a safe guard. It's easy to make a
few people mad but it's really hard to make a whole group mad. (62-1) It's a
good bet that the person is/was a jerk and the group is better off without
that problem.

Oh well, Just my two cents on Banning someone.

Happy Hiking

Doc

PS:




====================
HTTP://Syberspace.net
TeamJedi@SWOGO.ORG
Cell 513-379-9147
====================

---- mr_elsworth_toohey wrote:
> --- In letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com, "Drew Family" wrote:
> >
> > Margaret and I both hate this "banning" thing that happens sometimes on
> > letterbox-usa, and have ever since the first person was banned, a
> > gentleman from the Pacific Northwest four or five years ago. We think
> > that it was wrong then, and it's wrong now too.
>
> So that would mean then that if this gentleman subsequently banned
> people on his web site that that was wrong too. Right?
>
> Personally never and advocate of censorship but very intolerant of
> hypocrisy.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>

I like the group vote part, especially if there were choices of
banning or just moderated status.
Nisha

>SNIP<
BUT! I think we should all vote on it. Dreagon
was put to a vote and after a 62-1 vote to ban him, it was done. Also
if he comes forward and says he sorry the ban will be lifted. I know
no one
wants to ban anyone but no one wants to logon to trash talk. Your in
the hobby to feel good and find a box in the woods.
I also do not think a few people should have the power to ban someone
but the group as a whole should. The group can act as a safe guard.
It's easy to make a few people mad but it's really hard to make a
whole group mad. (62-1) It's good bet that the person is/was a jerk
and the group is better off without hat problem.>SNIP<