Topics

moderated banned members notified they're banned when try to log in - I thought this was stopped?


 

I just discovered, through a snafu in another group besides my own where I happen to be a moderator, that when someone has been banned, and they try to log in, they get a "you have been banned" banner. I thought that banned accounts simply don't see the "join this group" or "apply for membership in this group" button, and that they are not informed they've been banned.

I have been banning members up the wazoo simply because more can be seen of their past history that way. Usually, when someone leaves my group and does not answer the "good-bye, why did you leave" questionnaire, I immediately ban them only so that I can see their member notes, etc. I was under the distinct impression that THEY ARE NOT INFORMED they've been banned. But this changes everything. Unless this is fixed, I need to go back an unban tons of people.

Is it possible to fix this but changing it back to what it was (i.e., people are not informed they're banned from a group)? I think this is a very bad situation.
--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu


 

I just went in and unbanned 51 members who, as far as I could remember, had done no wrong. But it was hard to remember at this point which ones in the list had been banned for cause rather than banned so that I could have access more info on their histories. I am hoping for an update on this situation. Thanks!
--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu


 

I'm gobsmacked that you use the ban function in this way. If people don't wish to respond to your goodbye message, that's their prerogative. IMO nosying around after them in other ways is inappropriate and abuse of the feature.

Helen


 

Wow. This has nothing to do with punishing them for not responding. In the interest of my group, I simply want to see a record of their interaction, and any notes I or another mod might have made in their Notes page, to better understand why they left. This is not “nosying around after them.” This is an attempt to understand why people may be leaving the group, and which people might be leaving and why, The information is available, and this is simply a technical issue. The banned members list retains more information than the past members list.

Your criticism is inappropriate.

On Jul 21, 2019, at 9:56 AM, Helen <@felineckd> wrote:

I'm gobsmacked that you use the ban function in this way. If people don't wish to respond to your goodbye message, that's their prerogative. IMO nosying around after them in other ways is inappropriate and abuse of the feature.

Helen


--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu


 

With your logic, the entire existence and use by moderators of the past members page (available only to premium groups) must qualify as abusive nosying around as well. I’m sorry you feel that way. Use of the past members list to note facts about past members is a completely appropriate way to gain better information about how a group is functioning.

On Jul 21, 2019, at 10:03 AM, J_Catlady via Groups.Io <j.olivia.catlady=gmail.com@groups.io> wrote:

Wow. This has nothing to do with punishing them for not responding. In the interest of my group, I simply want to see a record of their interaction, and any notes I or another mod might have made in their Notes page, to better understand why they left. This is not “nosying around after them.” This is an attempt to understand why people may be leaving the group, and which people might be leaving and why, The information is available, and this is simply a technical issue. The banned members list retains more information than the past members list.

Your criticism is inappropriate.
On Jul 21, 2019, at 9:56 AM, Helen <@felineckd> wrote:

I'm gobsmacked that you use the ban function in this way. If people don't wish to respond to your goodbye message, that's their prerogative. IMO nosying around after them in other ways is inappropriate and abuse of the feature.

Helen



--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu


--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu


 

I never said you are punishing them, and I've no idea why you've used that word. I am commenting on the fact that you are using a groups.io function for a purpose entirely different to its intended function. I still find your actions inappropriate but that's one for Mark to decide.

If people do not want to say why they left my groups, I respect their decision. My groups will run just fine without me nosying around after people who have left. And at least I know that the very few people I have banned (two in five years, I think) really were banned.

Helen


 

Yes, wrong word. But you are implying that if they don’t respond, I have no right to look into their past history and notes to try to determine why. Doing that is patently not an abuse of the system of any feature. Like I said, if it is, then so is looking at the past members list. And it’s tiring to hear again your comment that I am “nosying around.” I am looking for information. “Nosying around” is your own pejorative interpretation.

The past members list exists because groups wanted it and I assume, like me, make good use of it. There is nothing in your argument about my use of the banned members list that does not also apply to any premium group’s use of the past memnrtz list. Banning is a hack around the technical problem. I hack around features all the time by using different features to effect the functionality I want.

I am gobsmacked that you are so gobsmacked.

On Jul 21, 2019, at 10:15 AM, Helen <@felineckd> wrote:

I never said you are punishing them, and I've no idea why you've used that word. I am commenting on the fact that you are using a groups.io function for a purpose entirely different to its intended function. I still find your actions inappropriate but that's one for Mark to decide.

If people do not want to say why they left my groups, I respect their decision. My groups will run just fine without me nosying around after people who have left. And at least I know that the very few people I have banned (two in five years, I think) really were banned.

Helen


--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu


 

You and I evidently use groups in different ways. And that is our, and everyone’s, perorative. That was clear when you strongly protested the availability of information on pending members that many of us had been strongly requesting and are now grateful for (IP address, etc). If there’s information you don’t want to use about your members, then don’t use it. But this attack on another groups.io member for using information that’s available, accusing them repeatedly of “nosying around” and abusing a feature, is hurtful and does not belong in beta.

On Jul 21, 2019, at 10:28 AM, J_Catlady via Groups.Io <j.olivia.catlady=gmail.com@groups.io> wrote:

Yes, wrong word. But you are implying that if they don’t respond, I have no right to look into their past history and notes to try to determine why. Doing that is patently not an abuse of the system of any feature. Like I said, if it is, then so is looking at the past members list. And it’s tiring to hear again your comment that I am “nosying around.” I am looking for information. “Nosying around” is your own pejorative interpretation.

The past members list exists because groups wanted it and I assume, like me, make good use of it. There is nothing in your argument about my use of the banned members list that does not also apply to any premium group’s use of the past memnrtz list. Banning is a hack around the technical problem. I hack around features all the time by using different features to effect the functionality I want.

I am gobsmacked that you are so gobsmacked.
On Jul 21, 2019, at 10:15 AM, Helen <@felineckd> wrote:

I never said you are punishing them, and I've no idea why you've used that word. I am commenting on the fact that you are using a groups.io function for a purpose entirely different to its intended function. I still find your actions inappropriate but that's one for Mark to decide.

If people do not want to say why they left my groups, I respect their decision. My groups will run just fine without me nosying around after people who have left. And at least I know that the very few people I have banned (two in five years, I think) really were banned.

Helen



--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu


--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu


Bruce Bowman
 

On Sun, Jul 21, 2019 at 01:03 PM, J_Catlady wrote:
Your criticism is inappropriate.
J -- Please let me offer a criticism that might be more appropriate.

If I understand correctly, you are using the ban function for a purpose that it was not intended for -- followed by wondering why your expectations are not met, and claiming that the system is broken. If you pay for Premium, you will be able to keep a record of past members without using the ban function.

Regards,
Bruce


 

Bruce, please read my original post in this thread. The information that the two lists keep is disparate. Past sometimes fails to show the Notes.

The prior criticism seems to rest on (1) using a feature for a purpose "other than what was intended" - which is, as I'm sure you know, done all the time and no violation of anything, (2) "nosying around" after a member has left the group, aka, gathering information on why they might possibly have left - which is of course also an invalid criticism. The past members list exists for that precise reason. It is an implementation artifact that the two lists - banned and past - contain differing information. Banning someone, usually temporarily, to get at the extra information does not harm anyone.

This hack rests on the assumption that members are not notified when they are banned, which used to be the case. There was protracted discussion here not long ago about precisely that, and the reason that there should not be an obligatory "banned member" notification. Now it seems the banner is back. I am simply asking that this go back to the way it was, and the way the majority here wanted, which was not to notify people when they are banned. 
--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu


 

On Sun, Jul 21, 2019 at 11:57 AM, Bruce Bowman wrote:
Please let me offer a criticism that might be more appropriate.
I'll give you one: the use of name-calling on this group.
 
--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu


 

On Sun, Jul 21, 2019 at 11:57 AM, Bruce Bowman wrote:
If you pay for Premium, you will be able to keep a record of past members without using the ban function
  I thought it was obvious from my OP that I do. I have access to the Past Members list.
--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu


 

A side issue and possible bug: another group I'm a moderator in includes "Banned" in the members lists dropdown, but you can't click on it. It seems that the banned members list is not available to basic groups, either? At minimum, this is some kind of bug and I will send the link to the group to Mark at support.

Meanwhile, if the Past and Banned lists would be consistent with each other, I would not have been led to this hack at all. The consistency has improved over time, but it;s still flakey and I've more or less given up asking for it. Perhaps now is the time to reiterate the request.
--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu


Duane
 

On Sun, Jul 21, 2019 at 03:21 PM, J_Catlady wrote:
another group I'm a moderator in includes "Banned" in the members lists dropdown, but you can't click on it.
You don't have sufficient privileges then.  Works fine for owners and many moderators on free groups.

Duane


 

Yes, Duane, I'd just come to that conclusion. I have access to the members list but can't change member's statuses. However, in those cases it would be preferable to not display the "banned" element of the dropdown at all. Instead, I see it, but when I click on it, it takes me to pending. That's a minor issue, but could stand fixing.


On Sun, Jul 21, 2019 at 1:50 PM Duane <txpigeon@...> wrote:
On Sun, Jul 21, 2019 at 03:21 PM, J_Catlady wrote:
another group I'm a moderator in includes "Banned" in the members lists dropdown, but you can't click on it.
You don't have sufficient privileges then.  Works fine for owners and many moderators on free groups.

Duane


--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu


 

On Sun, Jul 21, 2019 at 12:14 PM, J_Catlady wrote:
the use of name-calling on this group
Clarifying: that was not addressed to Bruce. It was simply a reference.
 
--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu


 

I'm gobsmacked that you use the ban function in this way. If
people don't wish to respond to your goodbye message,
that's their prerogative. IMO nosying around after them in
other ways is inappropriate and abuse of the feature.
I have to say I'm surprised at the judgmental nature of the responses to J's question. When did we stop trying to help each other and instead became unappointed judges of what people do?? Why is it wrong for a group owner to want to go back and follow the trail to see why someone got banned? If I had a moderator or co-owner ban someone, it only seems fair to the person being banned for me to review the situation to fully understand why that person was banned. If it takes a hack to see some of the finer details, so be it. Looking at *all* the details seems like the prudent thing to do to give a fair review of the case.

This group and GMF have been using hacks and workarounds when obstacles have been encountered for years. Eventually those obstacles get remedied, but owners have a job to do before the fix gets made.

If something is allowed in one view and not another, it seems that it was likely a simple omission when it was set up. When it comes to viewing past events of a group, why should an owner be hamstrung from doing the best job they can? Why would an owner not be allowed to know all the facts to review a decision? I've found that Mark is very cautious when he sets up these things regarding what is allowed and it's effects. And heaven knows there are enough little things that are still waiting to be fixed on groups.io.

I have other comments, but for now I'll leave it at that. We must occasionally be reminded that groups are not a democracy. They are at best a benevolent dictatorship, and for good reason. Owners have a great burden of being as fair as they can to their members and balancing that against the greater good of their group, lest they be called to explain someone's disgruntled complaint to the Management of groups.io.

Dano


 

There is nothing wrong with trying to see why somebody got banned. That is not the reason for this thread. The OP was not trying to see why people had been banned, she was banning them herself because she discovered that doing so enabled her to find out more about former group members who had had the temerity not to tell the group owners why they had left the group.

I don't monitor my members, never mind former members, which is one reason I objected to the approval of new members notices stating the applicant's location. As I said in the thread about the change to new member notices, at least have the courtesy to let people applying to join groups.io that their location will be shared with the group moderators, and now it appears they could also be told that that some group owners keep notes about their members, which remain accessible even after they have left. I wonder how that ties in with GDPR...

Helen


Sarah k Alawami
 

I agree with the ban if for example someone does not answer why they leave, etc. I don't use good bye surveys but if I did I would ban the member from coming back if they did not take the time to do this one thing before they left.

Sarah Alawami, owner of TFFP. . For more info go to our website. This is also our libsyn page as well.
For stuff we sell, mac training materials and  tutorials go here.
and for hosting options go here
to subscribe to the feed click here

Our telegram channel is also a good place for an announce only in regard to podcasts, contests, etc.

Finally, to become a patron and help support the podcast go here

On 21 Jul 2019, at 16:20, D R Stinson wrote:

I'm gobsmacked that you use the ban function in this way. If
people don't wish to respond to your goodbye message,
that's their prerogative. IMO nosying around after them in
other ways is inappropriate and abuse of the feature.

I have to say I'm surprised at the judgmental nature of the responses to J's question. When did we stop trying to help each other and instead became unappointed judges of what people do?? Why is it wrong for a group owner to want to go back and follow the trail to see why someone got banned? If I had a moderator or co-owner ban someone, it only seems fair to the person being banned for me to review the situation to fully understand why that person was banned. If it takes a hack to see some of the finer details, so be it. Looking at *all* the details seems like the prudent thing to do to give a fair review of the case.

This group and GMF have been using hacks and workarounds when obstacles have been encountered for years. Eventually those obstacles get remedied, but owners have a job to do before the fix gets made.

If something is allowed in one view and not another, it seems that it was likely a simple omission when it was set up. When it comes to viewing past events of a group, why should an owner be hamstrung from doing the best job they can? Why would an owner not be allowed to know all the facts to review a decision? I've found that Mark is very cautious when he sets up these things regarding what is allowed and it's effects. And heaven knows there are enough little things that are still waiting to be fixed on groups.io.

I have other comments, but for now I'll leave it at that. We must occasionally be reminded that groups are not a democracy. They are at best a benevolent dictatorship, and for good reason. Owners have a great burden of being as fair as they can to their members and balancing that against the greater good of their group, lest they be called to explain someone's disgruntled complaint to the Management of groups.io.

Dano


 

On Sun, Jul 21, 2019 at 05:11 PM, Helen wrote:
There is nothing wrong with trying to see why somebody got banned.
There is also nothing wrong with trying to see why somebody left a group, which, despite Dano's misinterpretation, is what's being discussed. It's one reason premium groups may use the Past Members list. There is simply a mismatch of information between the Past and the Banned list, because of some implementation problem. This is nothing more than a technical issue.

I don't monitor my members, never mind former members,
I certainly don't "monitor" members, let alone past members, either. I do like to try to get some idea of why someone leaves my group. In a group of 3,000+ like yours, that is probably not feasible. In a group one-tenth of that size, like mine, there can be a more detailed approach. There is nothing wrong with either one. My objection is to the adjectives, the accusation that I am being nosy or (worse) abusive by taking an approach that differs from the hands-off one you prefer.
--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu