*You got any? Heh.

Okay, really though...  Some thoughtful and concerned citizens of our beloved online community here have raised some questions about how and why users are "banned," to use their terminology.

Not to be nitpicky, but we don't use the term "ban."  Account suspension is a community management tool that we use only as a last resort, it is not undertaken without communication with the user in question, and it is not meant to be permanent (thus why "ban" is not the right word here).

First, let me go through the process, then I'll get to the real question that's been raised.  As many of you have related via personal anecdotes in comments, when I see content that constitutes a violation of our Terms of Use, I try to make contact with the user via email.  (This is why it is important for the email address in your profile to be accurate and up to date.)  I ask the user to edit their content appropriately, or, if, time-wise, it was more prudent for me to edit or delete the content, I explain why.  I always ask the user to write back with any questions and to let me know that they've received and understood the email.  I keep these emails as a record of our interactions.

Account suspension, which blocks a user from accessing her or his account and removes said user's profile and blog from view, is undertaken only after multiple contacts or attempts at contact in reference to multiple violations.  When I do this, I write an email explaining that the account will be suspended and why.  In that email, I lay out the terms for return: after a cooling-off period, write me an email detailing that you understand our Terms of Use and agree to abide by them, especially the ones whose violation resulted in the suspension in the first place.  If a suspended user attempts to return to Bakersfield.com by creating a new account and persona without first agreeing to these terms in writing, those new accounts will be suspended.  If a user is allowed to return under these terms but continues to violate the Terms of Use and the terms of their return, the new account will be suspended.

Which brings us to the real question: Am I "banning" people because I don't like or agree with their opinions or beliefs?  Short answer: No.  Absolutely not.  As I just said, account suspension is undertaken only after multiple violations and multiple attempts to address the issue with the user via email (except in the case of accounts set up solely to spam users via the "send a message" button). 

Long answer: Can it appear to users that I am disciplining them in a biased fashion?  Yes.  Do I think I am?  No.  Am I doing it on purpose?  Absolutely not.  But, as I've said again and again, I am one person, with one set of eyes, and this is an admittedly subjective endeavor.  I read as much of what is posted on Bakersfield.com's People pages as I can during the workday; on a Monday morning after a busy weekend, it can take half the day to catch up with content, and mornings are always spent going through the night's backlog.  But that doesn't mean I can see or find everything.  Soon, after I hit "post blog" on this and you start writing comments, I hope you understand that I am not going to see the comments or violation reports you submit at 12:03 tonight until I come in to work tomorrow (work, by the way, which does necessitate doing other duties in between my main duty of monitoring these blogs).  And yes, personal experience colors what and how I see just as surely as it does any of you, and I admit that.  That is not to say that I am consciously treating people in a differential manner, however--what it means is that I need all of your eyes and beliefs and experiences.  I need your emails and your violation reports, telling me about what I might not have seen or might not have understood as a violation.

That being said, however, I need to remind you of two things that may seem contradictory.  Please don't take my inaction, for whatever amount of time you deem too long, on a matter as tacit approval of said content, but at the same time, don't automatically assume that a violation report will necessarily lead to the action you want taken.

Now, since we're talking about assumptions, let me remind you again that you don't necessarily know all that goes on behind the scenes here, and that's by design, to protect your privacy.  When I have to suspend an account, I don't announce it on this blog for all to see, because that is a matter between me, as representative of Bakersfield.com, and the user in question.  Please don't assume that you know what communications or disciplinary measures had been undertaken previous to the suspension, or that you automatically know why the suspension happened.  I understand that even after this post, many of you will still assume that I take disciplinary action against users based on opinion, on content, on bias, rather than because of repeated violations of Terms of Use clauses regarding profanity or personal attacks that were unresolved by personal contact with the offending user.  [And yes, if I miss some profanity, tell me about it--my missing it is not a tacit approval, and though I dread nitpicking and have office discussions about the propriety of certain slang terms or even abbreviations common on the web or primetime television, I am following directives from my managers regarding their vision for this site.]  As well, some of you have expressed that I have done nothing about particular members of this community despite repeated violations.  While not excusing any slippages that may have occurred, I do remind you again that I don't advertise what communicatons or disciplinary actions take place behind the scenes.  Some of you today were referencing, for example, offenses made by a user under a previous name, months ago--why do you think that user disappeared for so long, or reappeared using a different name?  Was I really doing nothing all this time?  I don't mean to get defensive, but I'm just trying to explain a little.

Again, I apologize if you think I am biased based on opinions expressed in content.  I sincerely try not to be, and I rely on your help, via violation reports and, most important of all, by modeling the behavior you want to see in your neighbors.  AudreyB said it best this morning on another blogpost:

"Internet blogs have created an interesting social phenomena.  Blogs allow people to be aggressive without them actually physically hurting anyone.   I wonder if hostile bloggers always felt  this rage but managed to suppress it in everyday life.

The whole thing makes me wonder how far we've come from the playgrounds of of our childhood when I see the bullying, name calling, and taunting that goes on here under the guise of debate. 

I've come under my share of attack.  In the two and a half years I've been blogging, I've been called, old, stupid, fat, a whore, a female anatomy part and so on. The attacks made me realize that the important thing is to keep on point even when the attacks become personal.   

It's a sign of success that we (as a group) can continue to talk regardless of the hostility.   Sometimes we even listen."

Sometimes we even listen.  That's my job, to help make this a place where people of diverse opinions can talk and listen and disagree without personal attacks, swearing, namecalling.  And we're all building this place together.

Sigh...  Back to work...

(from http://www.comics.com/comic... 7/20/07)