Voices of the Banned

[_Paz_]

I haven't been banned yet, but I'll begin with my own voice.

Having "Community Expert(s)" giving out "Warnings" that people had better expect to be banned if they critisize the type of software Adobe has chosen to run this forum is ridiculous.

Having "Community Expert(s)" give out "Warnings" that people who participate instead of clicking the Anonymous Accusation and Hidden Trial Button or they might " might end up in the abuse queue too." is unconscionable.

Paz

[_Paz_]

From Banned Person "A"

“It's very strange what is happening over at the Adobe forums. I find it hard to believe that Adobe thinks it is proper to treat their customers in this manner. We were invited to critique the "new & improved" forums but, apparently, may not criticize them in any way. It's like when my wife will ask me "Does my butt look big in these pants"?

I'm normally a pretty easy going person. But, I was very angry when I received the e-mail telling me I was banned. They gave me no reason and did not refer to any particular post of mine. The e-mail stated that if I had any questions to contact them. I sent them a reply asking as to why because I knew of nothing offensive that I was guilty of. They haven't answered and I doubt that I will.”

And later, Banned Person “A”:

“I haven't been told any reason for being banned. I tried to log in but could not. Window came up informing me that I was banned and that I should contact my administrator. Whatever that means. I haven't received any reply from my e-mail.

I find it hard to believe that Adobe is treating me, and others, like this. It's not the company we knew in the past. While I need Photoshop I certainly will not be rushing out to purchase every new upgrade.”

And later, Banned Person “A” said this:

“So it appears that they don't know who I am but they are sure that I'm guilty.”

[_Paz_]

From Banned Person "B"

"Well, I've been banned from the forums along with a whole great raft of other people who also complained about the new forums and jackbooted new moderators”

and later, Banned Person “B”:

“Adobe said: These individuals were banned as a result of repeated complaints from other forum users.

I've been reported for abuse exactly once - and the complaint was rejected.”

And Later, Banned Person “B” said:

“Have I been told ...

1. what you were banned for?

No.

2. how long?

No

3. that you have been re-instated?

Hah!

Also, I go less and less often to read in the forums, but I think I gathered that there is now no separate log-in for the forums. So if I ever need to access my store account for registration data etc. I'm SOL (Sure Out of Luck!)”

[_Paz_]

From Banned Person "C"

“We know why BLANK and BLANK (two of the most helpful posters) were banned: because they verbally attacked the mods. But they always did more good than harm and the old-school hosts knew how to handle them.

A whole bunch were banned at one point. My impression is that Adobe said to that BLANK robot, "Give us a list of people that are annoying you". He did, and they just banned them without any consideration of their net contribution to the forums.

Far more serious as far as I am concerned is the list of valuable people that have just left and never returned. Probably disillusioned by the Mickey Mouse forum software and the general aura of negativity.”

[Jochem van Dieten]

Paz wrote on 12/8/2009 6:31 PM:

Having "Community Expert(s)" give out "Warnings" that people who participate instead of clicking the Anonymous Accusation and Hidden Trial Button or they might " might end up in the abuse queue too." is unconscionable.

The exact words were:

But if people react by throwing oil on the flames instead of simply clicking the report abuse link they might end up in the abuse queue too.

If you present arguments people might listen to you. But if you start

with presenting "participate" as an accurate synonym for "throwing oil

on the flames" don't count on anybody listening.

[_Paz_]

I know that's what you said.

How is that different from individually participating - giving one's honest opinion?

Using your ANONYMOUS Report Abuse Button, to be followed by SECRET TRIAL  is EVIL.

[Jochem van Dieten]

Paz wrote on 12/8/2009 7:03 PM:

I know that's what you said.l

So if you know what I said, why don't you quote me correctly but instead

misrepresent my words?

How is that different from individually participating - giving one's honest opinion?

If you mean "why do you respond to that part, and not the other part

about 'individually participating'", then that is because I could

actually identify what you were misrepresenting. If you mean something

else, please clarify.

Using your ANONYMOUS Report Abuse Button, to be followed by SECRET TRIAL is EVIL.

You are aware of the previous discussions we had on this subject?

Including the one where I showed the relevant parts of the datamodel

that show it is impossible to have anonymous abuse reports? Perhaps you

should read it again: http://forums.adobe.com/message/2426100#2426100

[_Paz_]

Community Expert JVD said:

"So if you know what I said, why don't you quote me correctly but instead

misrepresent my words?"

I had no intention of mis-representing your words.

I do not believe I mis-represented your words.  While I did not quote you exactly,  I did say it the way I remembered it.

Obviously your interpretation is different than mine.  I say individual people being willing to take the time to come here, to participate, and you say throwing fuel.

No.  I have not read your report.

Perhaps REPORT ABUSE is not anonymous to you Community EXPERTS, but they sure seem to be anonymous to the BANNED.

Patrice

[Jochem van Dieten]

Paz wrote on 12/8/2009 7:32 PM:

I do not believe I mis-represented your words. While I did not quote you exactly, I did say it the way I remembered it.

So you remembered one thing, and because you correctly paraphrased what

you remembered it was an accurate representation, despite me writing

something completely different. That argument is not impressing me much.

Perhaps next time you should look up what was actually written.

I think you should take a moment to consider what you want to achieve

here. If you want to achieve some specific change to these forums, it

might be best if you forgot about this thread and just started a new one

with a clean slate. There you tell what you want to change and why that

change would be beneficial. And your words will carry more weight if you

write a coherent argument where you distinguish between fact and

interpretation.

If you just want to vent instead of an actual change, please don't start

a new thread as I just added this one to my ignore list.

[_Paz_]

Correct answer goes to shunithD

You know, JVD, I did not ascribe quotation marks to your statement except for the part where you made it quite clear that anyone who bucks Adobe's new system had better watch out.  At the time it didn't even matter to me which "Community Expert" said it.  It's been made perfectly clear that anyone who comes here and complains is fueling by your personal definition.  I stand by my interpretation.

Your statement that what I have to say has no value is bogus, but I suppose it is your interpretation.

But then, I came here to let people know what the BANNED have had to say about how Adobe has treated them.  Adobe's loyal customers.  Do you believe there is no value in what any of them have to say either?

Another thing, suppose I were to be a rat and click your Anonymous Report Abuse Button to report you for "moderating" like a jack booted thug instead of the "Community Expert" you are touted to be... it wouldn't be anonymous to you, would it?  In fact, you could run to your superiors and tell them I'm a rabble rouser because I don't like the abusive methods Adobe is allowing their "Community Experts to use.  Isn't that right?

On the other hand, you can report me anonymously?  Right?  Like the BANNED have been reported and locked out anonymously?

[_Paz_]

Good Grief!

Looks like JVD got the "CORRECT ANSWER" stupid points instead of the poster I intended.  Another example of just how sorry this JIVE software is.

Oh, and Banned Person "B" now has this to say:

"Thanks. Looks like that's it though - no warning email, no indication of what might cause a life-time ban, not even a 'read-only-for-a-week' as a first step - whoosh, you're out, forever.

Except, maybe, from Jochem's post - if I send a grovelling email promising never again to do whatever I did. Whatever it was."

[pwillener]

I do not understand that obsession of banning users in this forum!

I am a moderator at several popular forums, and I am usually very quick to ban spammers, and even to block their sign-up IP address for repeaters.  But to ban regular contributors, or even customers, that is not something I ever contemplated!  Yes, some users do get a bit exited sometimes, but there is nothing that cannot be rectified with a PM, a warning, or in the worst case a temporary posting ban (which I have never used).

But what goes on here is simply beyond my imagination!  Members that have been contributing for ten years or longer are permanently banned without even a warning?  Or a reason?

Is the logic behind that that there are still enough other signed-up users?  I simply don't understand that...

[Guest]

"Their fourms, their call"

That quote sums it up in one neat little package for all to understand.

[_Paz_]

"But what goes on here is simply beyond my imagination!  Members that have been contributing for ten years or longer are permanently banned without even a warning?"

Yes.  Members that have  been contributing 10 years or so.  I know, because I've been here that long.

"Or a reason?"

Obviously they were not given a reason, but there is a reason.  These BANNED MEMBERS cared enough about these forums to not give up hope that this dismal software might be abandoned for something better -  at least what used to be -  if they cried in the wildnerness long enough.

[_Paz_]

Banned Person B says this:

"If I was really upsetting so many people - multiple complaints against all the banned? - the most I would see as reasonable would be this:

Email telling me I was close to the wind and risking a ban.

Maybe a week or so read-only in FCA - a month at a push - and possibly the Lounge.

NO change to privileges in product forums where I am helpful and innocuous. I did pay for the damn stuff! And I should be entitled to ask and answer product questions."

Edit by Paz:

Adding this, said by Banned Person B:

“Adobe said: These individuals were banned as a result of repeated complaints from other forum users.

I've been reported for abuse exactly once - and the complaint was rejected.”

[shunithD]

_Paz_ wrote:

“Adobe said: These individuals were banned as a result of repeated complaints from other forum users.

I've been reported for abuse exactly once - and the complaint was rejected.”

Ah!... The ubiquitous "...repeated complaints from other users..." Going through past posts, if i remember correctly, there was a certain Mod who loved to trot this one out to justify bannings, etc. However, when asked for specifics, a strange silence descended with no tangible references but a fair amount of smoke and mirrors... leading one to wonder as to the author of the aforementioned 'repeated complaints'.

[Ned Murphy]

Taunting a/the moderator... really unnecessary

[Guest]

no Ned, stating there are multiple complaints when there were not is taunting.  Not admitting the errors is taunting the users into asking questions that in turn got them "on the list" for being watched.

[shunithD]

Ned Murphy wrote:

Taunting a/the moderator... really unnecessary

No intention to taunt...  This was just a statement of facts. You can verify them for yourself by doing an appropriate search.

[Curt Wrigley]

shunithD wrote:

Ned Murphy wrote:

Taunting a/the moderator... really unnecessary

No intention to taunt...  This was just a statement of facts. You can verify them for yourself by doing an appropriate search.

Statement of facts?   You are asking mods to publish complaints about other users.  This would be very inappropriate.   Complaints come in different forms; one of which is the Report Abuse button.    Adobe examines these complaints which are used as the basis of their decision.

[shunithD · Accepted solution]

Touché...

But there's no point arguing... they refuse to see the 'error' of their ways... they tie you up in obfuscations, other Community Experts come in at a tangent to further muddy waters and attempt to diffuse – not defuse – issues... and the story carries on... with each one saying, "Who me?", and, naturally it is not the "Who me?" as the ball has neatly been passed.

The bannings are legion... little drum masters strutting around... ducking the issue and responsibility by claiming, in one breath, that only Adobe personnel can actually ban users and in the next, that this forum is a User-to-User forum and so no Adobe employees visit it... except in a personal capacity. (However, i think, they have got around the last by dropping the "User-to-User" tag.) Whatever, however, i feel there are certain 'drum majors' around who delight in banning users who dare post anything contrary to their dictats. Others then swarm in to, as i said, obfuscate the issue. I have been following this as an observer and the pattern is very clear.

And, if no Adobe employee visits officially, and all bannings are done on the basis of recommendations by certain moderators, as claimed, more or less by the mod/s themselves, my case stands. Limited evidence and kangaroo trials.

So sad... so sad...

PS: Guess 1/ My post will be deleted or 2/ I'll be banned or 3/ All three

[Gyno-jiz]

4/ Profit!

[_Paz_]

If there is ANY moderator here who can snatch those 10 points away from JVD, I'd greatly appreciate it.  Not that they're worth anything to anyone who has a lick of sense.