Inkbunny

IB Gear Latest Popular Members Search
 
Welcome to Inkbunny...
Allowed ratings
To view member-only content, create an account. ( Hide )
Caust

IBP Banned?

by
I'm not trying to stir the pot or even throw muck, but I can't be the only one who saw @IBp's removal from the site as a bit excessive right?
The guy's a very prolific commissioner and has continued to work with a lot of the top artist on IB.  He's clearly a major contributor to the website and its community.
It just feels a bit weird and unjust that the thing that purged him from the place was questioning a mod's choice regarding a temp ban of an artist. Not even a temp or a warning, but fully removed for questioning the suspension of another user.
This website runs circles around the other gallery options available, but I question its longevity and strength if it's so willing to dash its already niche community apart like this.
Viewed: 180 times
Added: 1 month, 3 weeks ago
 
22 Comments on this Journal
Leave a Comment...
Rethex
Rethex
1 month, 3 weeks ago
link
Are you sure he got removed? maybe he deleted the account himself?
Caust
Caust
1 month, 3 weeks ago
link
Yeah, I reached out to him and it was a full deletion of everything.
Mixterious
Mixterious
1 month, 3 weeks ago
link
We need to stand up for our colleagues, this can’t happen
Kadm
Kadm
1 month, 3 weeks ago
link
Edited 1 month, 3 weeks ago by Owner
We enact bans only as an absolute last resort after we have tried everything else with an account to get them to comply with the sites Terms and moderation edicts. If we've tried all available measures, such as issue warnings, restricting permissions, and enforcing blocks between users, and a user continues to cause disruption on the site, then we are at a point where they're not longer going to be a contributing member regardless of how much they commission. Ones popularity should have no bearing on how consequences are meted out.

People are welcome to disagree with staff members. We don't ban for that. There have been plenty of journals discussing problems with our operation of the site over the years. The bar is different for someone on their last warning because they spent years harassing people though. When we allow you to have your journal permission back (after removing it for harassing users and the staff) with the stipulation that you not cause further issues, then we expect that you will behave.

We give everyone as many opportunities as possible to try and make it work. We don't like removing people. But we are an extremely small staff. We cannot have people constantly generating huge problems that need direct moderator attention.
lori
lori
1 month, 3 weeks ago
link
Is there any chance the individual could just have journal/comment permissions yoinked again instead of an outright deletion of everything?
Kadm
Kadm
1 month, 3 weeks ago
link
These are things we weigh in deciding how we're going to apply consequences. Generally speaking, I am not a huge fan of removing the same privilege repeatedly, because we will have to deal with that user coming back and telling us things have changed, and they won't do that again. There comes a point when a problem spans a decade, that you say "That's enough", and that we're not going to deal with this for another decade.

Inkbunny is not the only community out there. It may take more than one website to fill all of the gaps that we allow, but if it was so valuable to someone that they're going to fall to pieces without it, then they should have treated the privilege that way. No one is entitled to an Inkbunny account. It is not an inalienable human right. Users are free to disagree, and even dislike us. Plenty do. But if you are abusive and disruptive, when you attack us when we try to warn you that your behavior risks your account, do not expect a high level of sympathy in return afterwards. You will get the dispassionate assessment of whether or not your continued membership constitutes a risk of increasing the burden of operating the site.
Neos8
Neos8
1 month, 3 weeks ago
link
I will disagree with the handling of the situation overall. My question is what did IBP say to warrant immediate termination of his IB account?
Kadm
Kadm
1 month, 3 weeks ago
link
A normal user in good standing would likely not have been banned for what Pierce did. But when we restored his permissions (journal and comments) which were revoked previously, an expectation was set that he would not be disruptive to the site and attack people. To be clear, removing journal and comments permission is an extreme measure in and off itself, as it fairly neuters an account. You are as close to being banned as you can be.

In light of the history of his account, and the prospect of him continuing to be disruptive for the entire three months (along with some outright lying and extremely deceptive presentation of the issues), we made the decision to terminate his account. Again, a normal user in good standing does not experience these issues, because they do not have years upon years of warnings and consequences built up.
Neos8
Neos8
1 month, 3 weeks ago
link
That is not good enough for me to see that a total justify a wipe of an account. Are there records of such things? I may not be a mod but I would think something is in place to have records or such to let the person or persons know what they have done.

 "You are as close to being banned as you can be."

What does this statement mean? I was thinking it was at me or the explaination thats wasn't written well.

But again I still disagree with the nuking of his account.

Kadm
Kadm
1 month, 3 weeks ago
link
Pierce would have received email copies of all of his notices from staff over the years. We have notes on the accounts for general information, but a users Private Messages (including the staff notices) are generally purged when they are banned. We do not share our internal notes, and it's rare for us to share the notices sent to users, unless an impacted user posts a deception and we provide the notice to clear things up.

" "You are as close to being banned as you can be."

What does this statement mean? I was thinking it was at me or the explaination thats wasn't written well.


I mean that in the context right before it.

" To be clear, removing journal and comments permission is an extreme measure in and off itself, as it fairly neuters an account.


If you have lost the core permissions of your account, you are the last step before being banned. So if we do that, it is so severe that we do not believe you can be allowed to interact with other users on Inkbunny. So for years all he could do was submit art here, not PM, comment, or write journals.

We restore those permissions in the hope that a user will reform and not do what caused them to be revoked in the first place. As I said above, I do not like the idea of removing permissions again, if they prove that trust is misplaced. At that point, it is clear that they will never be a user in good standing and it is time to part ways.
Neos8
Neos8
1 month, 3 weeks ago
link
You keep mentioning "good standing" but what do you mean by that?
Kadm
Kadm
1 month, 3 weeks ago
link
That means a user account that has not accrued a large number of warnings. Most users never get a warning, like an actual honest to god warning. If an account has been warned, or gone beyond that, to have actual consequences levied, then it is not really in good standing anymore.
Neos8
Neos8
1 month, 3 weeks ago
link
Ok so seeing this and the response that you gave caust then pierce didnt get a recent warning then. Also you said that mods are disagreed with but were you threatened? Im not understanding that nuking pierce's account cause he complained about the suspension of roarey is anything but against the rules. You mentioned emails were sent before so was one sent out for the journal post that was deleted? Did he threaten you guys or something cause i am still not seeing it.

Im trying to get why this was done, but its not making any sense.
Kadm
Kadm
1 month, 3 weeks ago
link
He did not receive a recent warning. Warnings do not fall off or expire. They are forever. We certainly take time between issues into account, but in an extreme circumstance, where the number and severity of the warnings is high, that doesn't really matter. You don't get to just keep getting warnings forever, stop for a while, and then misbehave again. There comes a point, as it has here, where we are done with warnings and the user is removed.

There was an ordering issue with how his account was removed, and so the notice he should have received was not sent. Regardless, he contacted me afterwards on Telegram, and verified that he was banned.

Pierce was told that he was expected to refrain from being disruptive when we restored his permissions. We allowed the first journal about Roarey being banned, but when he published a second journal, and with the thought that he may simply continue publishing journals and fomenting problems until the end of Roarey's suspension, we terminated his account. The journals themselves are not against the rules, but they are certainly against the commitment that we got from him when we restored his permissions on Inkbunny.
Neos8
Neos8
1 month, 3 weeks ago
link
I see. Well again I say I kindly disagree with the handling if journals can be disagreed on, but I also say that if this how its handled then I hope that others are handle the same. This is a messy situation and Im finding it hard to feel comfortable to be here if just criticizing a mod or mods is getting you banned or worse.

Kadm
Kadm
1 month, 3 weeks ago
link
There are precious few users with this many warnings. There are not a lot of people we need to handle the same way, because we have shown uncommon tolerance for these particular users.
Caust
Caust
1 month, 3 weeks ago
link
Outside of the recent one questioning a ban decision I can't recall anything especially charged getting posted by him. I've seen several other people candidly talking about US politics and other contentuous subjects, but nothing from that account.
What other recent ones has he made that were seeking to cause conflict or harm?
Kadm
Kadm
1 month, 3 weeks ago
link
Edited 1 month, 3 weeks ago by Owner
There was nothing else recent. But we don't give you a sticker for six months without a site disrupting meltdown, that you can redeem for one incident. And in fact, we were prepared to leave things as they were after the first journal, if he did not continue posting about it. But we're not going to sit and deal with three months of drama over Roarey's suspension, especially with the extremely deceptive and out of context way it was painted. It was clearly framed in a way to cause people to get upset at moderators, making Roarey look like a victim without ever highlighting his history of warnings or the abuse that he hurls at us over the years.
lori
lori
1 month, 3 weeks ago
link
Edited 1 month, 3 weeks ago by Owner
FWIW I looked into the situation further after posting this and now agree with your decision. My only real surprise here is that it took that long for the bad actors to get banned.
Kadm
Kadm
1 month, 3 weeks ago
link
It swings both ways. We are extremely patient and offer significant chances for people to improve. So to some people it looks like we allow far more than we should. We really don't like banning people. We want people to participate. But that means those people need to abide by the terms and not fight moderation every step of the way.
quintisian27
quintisian27
1 month, 3 weeks ago
link
"You have a responsibility to maintain your user page, journals, and submission comments in a way that ensures that it's not perennially in violation of the Terms of Service."

"We're also under no obligation to allow you to continue as a member. Us allowing a particular user to be a member is contingent on good behavior and adherence to the Terms of Service."

"I'm telling you that if you want to be a member of this site, there are responsibilities that you have. You are welcome to simply not be a member here. But by choosing to be a member, taking advantage of our time spent building and operating this site, you are obligated to follow our direction on this site."

remember...by creating an inkbunny account, you have certain obligations to do the job of "moderator" for the actual site moderators. so says...an inkbunny moderator...

"We enact bans only as an absolute last resort after we have tried everything else with an account to get them to comply with the sites Terms and moderation edicts."

i don't believe that in the slightest.

"The bar is different for someone on their last warning because they spent years harassing people though. When we allow you to have your journal permission back (after removing it for harassing users and the staff) with the stipulation that you not cause further issues, then we expect that you will behave."

...depends on if you're part of the protected class of users or not...
KetRalus
KetRalus
1 month, 2 weeks ago
link
I've always had good experiences with the staff here at Inkbunny. They've always been patient enough to explain things to me when I was unsure about the rules. Obviously, the staff would be in breach of privacy to share private conversations, so that's not possible. The onus is on IBp to share the correspondence. Of course, there's always a way to paint things in his favor by omitting certain conversations. I'm more willing to believe Inkbunny in this case.
New Comment:
Move reply box to top ↑
Log in or create an account to comment.
 

Help

Information

Policy & Legal

Twitter Facebook LinkedIn

All artwork and other content is copyright its respective owners.

Powered by Harmony 'Gravitation' Release 80.

Content Server: Virginia Cache - provided by Inkbunny Donors. Background: Blank Gray.

The Inkbunny web application, artwork, name and logo are copyright and trademark of their respective owners.