Banned Participants Question

[LRK_2]

I keep getting wind of different longtime faithful participants who have been banned. I can't help but think that many of these are a mistake. So many who are gone were among the most helpful when users needed help.

Can someone who is in authority please offer an explanation? And can you please reassess this situation?

Thank you for your time…

Linda

[Curt Wrigley]

LRK,

To answer your question; People are only banned if they repeatedly violate the forum guidelines.

javascript:;

Only Adobe employees can make the decision to ban a user and only Adobe employees have the authority to execute a ban.

[LRK_2]

Curt Wrigley wrote:

LRK,

To answer your question; People are only banned if they repeatedly violate the forum guidelines.

Forum etiquette and best practices

Only Adobe employees can make the decision to ban a user and only Adobe employees have the authority to execute a ban.

I seriously doubt that the participant with the screen name QPhoto violated the forum guidelines. It's just not his character to behave in a way that is troublesome. He himself does not know what he did to be banned. This vague rhetoric is annoying. I don't know what to think about you people.

[Cindy-]

Watch it Linda, you might get banned. But then who really cares? The Adobe forums are gone.

[Captiv8r]

Hi LRK

I'm a bit puzzled about what you are expecting here. Are you expecting the Adobe folks to answer to you as to why a particular forum user was banned?

The thing is, you and me and Curt and most of the others here are all quite simply forum users. Plain and simple. Some of us have simply volunteered our time and are helping Adobe by moderating in our own fora.

I might expect that banning any individual is likely a privacy issue between Adobe and the banned individual. Because of that reason alone I might imagine that Adobe would refuse to discuss it.

All that Curt and I have done is to express what we understand are the reasons a forum user may be banned. Assuming you have contact with QPhoto, I would encourage you to ask them to contact Adobe about it. After all, a human had to make the judgment to ban. Perhaps they made a mistake. Heck, we are all human here. Surely if someone were to have made a mistake they would be willing to re-examine things and perhaps view it in a different light or figure out where things went wrong.

Cheers... Rick

[LRK_2]

Captiv8r wrote:

Hi LRK

I'm a bit puzzled about what you are expecting here. Are you expecting the Adobe folks to answer to you as to why a particular forum user was banned?

The thing is, you and me and Curt and most of the others here are all quite simply forum users. Plain and simple. Some of us have simply volunteered our time and are helping Adobe by moderating in our own fora.

I might expect that banning any individual is likely a privacy issue between Adobe and the banned individual. Because of that reason alone I might imagine that Adobe would refuse to discuss it.

All that Curt and I have done is to express what we understand are the reasons a forum user may be banned. Assuming you have contact with QPhoto, I would encourage you to ask them to contact Adobe about it. After all, a human had to make the judgment to ban. Perhaps they made a mistake. Heck, we are all human here. Surely if someone were to have made a mistake they would be willing to re-examine things and perhaps view it in a different light or figure out where things went wrong.

Cheers... Rick

Rick,

The user who goes by the name QPhoto is following this thread. He mentioned that he did send an email inquiry but never hear back.

I am just a little confused at the widespread banning. I realize that you are a volunteer and your job is not always easy. I respect your willingness to assist others. I also realize that things have gotten out of control in these forums from time to time. But I've been a little puzzled at who has been banned and who has not been banned at times. I've seen and heard about some who have appeared to stir up trouble on a continual basis. Then it seems the reactionary parties were the only ones banned.

I am a person who really wants to believe the best in people. I like people in general, all kinds of people. I don't like confronting these issues, and I don't like to put myself in an adversarial position. Truly I don't. But I am saddened by the attitude toward others whom I have had the privilege of getting to know, and have countless times benefitted from their advice. Speaking of more than QPhoto at this point. From what I understand, a large percentage of the long term support base has been booted out.

Guess I've said what I wanted to say. I don't intend to fight or argue or stir up trouble. Just wanted to see if there was an answer to some of the questions that myself and others have had over recent events.

Linda

[Cindy-]

Linda, don't expect to get any real answers here or anywhere about these forums. Many have tried and the whole thing seems to be one big ugly joke.

[Captiv8r]

Hi Linda

I wish I had a good answer for you. I honestly do. Like you, I tend to assume the best in folks myself. Well, until they prove themselves differently anyway.

I'm assuming that Adobe is acting in good faith as well. Unfortunately I have no experience with QPhoto and if this person was banned unnecessarily, I feel for them as it would seem an unjust slap in the face!

I do suppose that it's possible that maybe wherever QPhoto hangs out, he managed to get on the wrong side of a moderator? (Hey, I'm sure it could happen) Then again, I would think if that were honestly the case, and if Adobe is true to their word that they review a situation before banning actually occurs, that such a situation would be rather obvious and they wouldn't simply ban someone based on pure words from a moderator. Then again, I guess only Adobe knows for sure on that.

As I understand things, a ban isn't necessarily permanent. So perhaps Adobe will be in contact with QPhoto soon and resolve matters.

I appreciate your candor and maturity in calmly discussing the issue at hand here. It's really unfortunate that so many of these threads seem to devolve so quickly when we are expressing our own views and whatnot. So it's refereshing!

Sincerely... Rick

[LRK_2]

Captiv8r wrote:

As I understand things, a ban isn't necessarily permanent. So perhaps Adobe will be in contact with QPhoto soon and resolve matters.

I appreciate your candor and maturity in calmly discussing the issue at hand here. It's really unfortunate that so many of these threads seem to devolve so quickly when we are expressing our own views and whatnot. So it's refereshing!

Sincerely... Rick

Thank you Rick. I do hope that there can be resolve with some of these issues, and hopefully with QPhoto in particular for now. I'm sure most of us would like to feel we can communicate on a better level and be able to work things out in the future.

[Captiv8r]

Hi Linda

I've asked about QPhoto on another list I monitor. No information yet other than to hear more reports that nobody recalls any missteps (intentional or otherwise) by QPhoto.

QPhoto, if you are reading these posts as has been suggested, can you please get in touch with me via private E-Mail? My address is rstone75 (at) kc (dot) rr (dot) com. I'll be happy to do whatever I can to assist.

Note that as I've said before, I'm a forum user same as the rest of you. So there is no guarantee that Adobe will listen to me any more than they will listen to you.

Cheers... Rick

[LRK_2]

Rick,

Thank you very much for listening and being considerate. I'm relaying this information to QPhoto and I trust he is still following this thread.

Linda

[shunithD]

LRK 2 wrote:

Thank you very much for listening and being considerate. I'm relaying this information to QPhoto and I trust he is still following this thread.

Linda

He's banned... how can he follow the thread? If you mean in purely reading capacity, well... but why should he, if he has any self respect? I think, Adobe should just email and apologise. After all, and more than all, he's a valued contributor... and they're fast running out of these thanks to the ham-handed efforts of certain 'moderators", shall we say?

So sad, so sad

[LRK_2]

Another participant who contacted me about being banned is Kath Howard. Kath was very active for many years in the GoLive Forums. She has helped countless users find answers to their questions. Kath cannot get answers to her questions as to why she was banned, for how long, or if she will ever be re-instated.

[Cindy-]

Linda, I re-assert. This is the way "they" want it. Kathy was part of the old Adobe forum group. She probably made too many objections (valid I might add) to the new and inferior forum format.

[Jochem van Dieten]

LRK 2 wrote on 12/8/2009 8:18 PM:

Another participant who contacted me about being banned is Kath Howard. Kath was very active for many years in the GoLive Forums. She has helped countless users find answers to their questions. Kath cannot get answers to her questions as to why she was banned, for how long, or if she will ever be re-instated.

Why was discussed. I would guess the best way to figure out the how long

question is for her to email Adobe. But I would not be surprised that

unless said email contains some serious assurances as to a change in

behavior the answer is "permanently".

[Jochem van Dieten]

LRK 2 wrote on 12/8/2009 4:55 AM:

I am just a little confused at the widespread banning.

Widespread? Just who all are do you mean who wasn't discussed here yet?

I've seen and heard about some who have appeared to stir up trouble on a continual basis. Then it seems the reactionary parties were the only ones banned.

I watch the abuse queue pretty closely and I can honestly say that

anybody who is reported for abuse on a continual basis is watched very

closely. 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.

[pwillener]

jochemd wrote:

...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.

I have never seen member Q Photo behaving like that.  He (she?) always posted in the most respectful manner.

[Jochem van Dieten]

ʇɐb ɹəuəllıʍ wrote on 12/8/2009 10:15 AM:

jochemd wrote :

>> ...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.

I have never seen member Q Photo behaving like that. He (she?) always posted in the most respectful manner.

First, I have no idea who Q Photo even is. I was trying to illustrate

something else. Or actually two things.

I wrote that I watch the abuse queue closely and that anybody who is

reported on a continual basis is watched very closely. But that depends

on people reporting abuse when they see it. If people don't, those who

"stir up trouble on a continual basis" get a free pass to continue. I

will even go as far a saying that if there is any current user who stirs

up trouble on a continual basis and it appears nothing is done about it,

that is because we don't know about it.

The other part of it is how sometimes abuse reports are one sided and

don't give a good perspective of what is happening. Last weekend there

was some flame war where somebody reported several messages from one

side of the argument as abuse. So I clean up the queue, then clean up

the thread. The end result is that from both sides 6 messages were

rejected. If people had just reported abuse instead of responding to

some (perceived) provocation it would have been cleaned up much sooner.

While that was pretty harmless, a good example of people actually

throwing oil on the flames is what happened in this thread

http://forums.adobe.com/message/2304410#2304410 (Read down from the

linked message until the last one.) That is also a good example of a

situation where we are taking a much more proactive approach and both

baiter and baitee are likely to end up being nominated.

[Kami_Bambiraptor]

First, I have no idea who Q Photo even is.

In my opinion (and you (or someone else) may ban me for having this opinion and expressing it if you wish), that is a lie. I saw the post which got him banned - and I saw that it was deleted by someone about five minutes later. You were participating in that thread that day; if, somehow, you managed to not see Q Photo, that would be rather astonishing. As well, Q-Photo has been around these fora for at least a year or two, and has participated (before being banned of course) in the discussions in this forum.

I think it would be a lovely thing, indeed, if you could see yourself as you are seen by others.

[Cindy-]

I think it would be a lovely thing, indeed, if you could see yourself as you are seen by others.

Kami, you are a breath of fresh air. Perhaps one day he can be rid of us all!!

[Jochem van Dieten]

Kami Bambiraptor wrote on 12/8/2009 10:55 PM:

>> First, I have no idea who Q Photo even is.

In my opinion (and you (or someone else) may ban me for saying so if you wish), that is a lie. I saw the post which got him banned - and I saw that it was deleted by someone about five minutes later.

Anybody who has subscribed to the email notifications can confirm that

the only post Q Photo made in the Forum Comments forum since the end of

September is still there: http://forums.adobe.com/message/2363547#2363547

No need to apologize, I have grown immune to people claiming I deleted

something whenever they can't find it

You were participating in that thread that day; if, somehow, you managed to not see Q Photo, that would be rather astonishing.

So seeing some message equals knowing? So you would also claim you know

me? And I know you? Wow.

I think it would be a lovely thing, indeed, if you could see yourself as you are seen by others.

I think it is quite funny how I am supposedly some super moderator who

never sleeps but patrols these forums 24/7 deleting everything he

doesn't like and banning users left an right. Especially considering

what really goes on.

[Phillip_M_Jones]

Captiv8r wrote:

Hi LRK

I'm a bit puzzled about what you are expecting here. Are you expecting the Adobe folks to answer to you as to why a particular forum user was banned?

The thing is, you and me and Curt and most of the others here are all quite simply forum users. Plain and simple. Some of us have simply volunteered our time and are helping Adobe by moderating in our own fora.

I might expect that banning any individual is likely a privacy issue between Adobe and the banned individual. Because of that reason alone I might imagine that Adobe would refuse to discuss it.

All that Curt and I have done is to express what we understand are the reasons a forum user may be banned. Assuming you have contact with QPhoto, I would encourage you to ask them to contact Adobe about it. After all, a human had to make the judgment to ban. Perhaps they made a mistake. Heck, we are all human here. Surely if someone were to have made a mistake they would be willing to re-examine things and perhaps view it in a different light or figure out where things went wrong.

Cheers... Rick

LR2 said:

What about a member by the screen name of Q Photo? He was always very polite, and often attempted to make peace, and yet it came to my attention recently that he also was banned. He has no idea why. He sent an email but never received a response.

It appears that said individual did and his email was ignored.

[LRK_2]

PjonesCET wrote:

LR2 said:

What about a member by the screen name of Q Photo? He was always very polite, and often attempted to make peace, and yet it came to my attention recently that he also was banned. He has no idea why. He sent an email but never received a response.

It appears that said individual did and his email was ignored.

Thank you for paying attention and re-emphasizing my earlier point Phillip.

[shunithD]

LRK 2 wrote:

... This vague rhetoric is annoying. I don't know what to think about you people.

Yeah... it's all smoke and mirrors... butter won't melt in anyone's mouth

[Guest]

Being banned for life for being outspoken and passonate about their beliefs on a topic is ridiculous. Strike that: make that ludacris. The so called crime (what crime?) does not deserve the unjust ban for life punishment forced upon them in a cold harsh way.

Maybe a few days suspension is ok to cool off for a first offense. But to ban someone for life for the first offense is insane and cold blooded. There banned people that hold in their minds intellectual knowledge far superior and advanced then any customer support service can ever have or even wish for. If Adobe can afford to lose this intellectual knowledge base, for some minor first time infraction, then so be it. These people, for years and free of charge, helped hundereds of people and that is the thanks they get: Banded for life. Nothing like Adobe shooting themselves in the foot to make a point.

[Cindy-]

The whole thing is ludacris. Who ever is behind all the recent decisions should have their head examined. Adobe being an inviting place to be is something that has lost its importance. Kinda like that other company that InDesign finally dominated. Same thing different time.