Mar 30, 17 / Tau 05, 01 13:31 UTC

Banning of Members  

I have grave concerns over how this forum is being moderated. A recent banning of a member, EyeR, occured after a heated thread about concealed weapons. Whilst I understand the rules, and have carefully read and re-read the thread, it seems that the rules only apply to certain members. These insults and personal attacks were hurled:

By Brandon7 *But, if Asgardia were to become a reality in the next three years. I sure as hell would not want to live aboard a space station with any of you folks.

*Shut up with the empty threats already, unless you like contradicting yourself and looking silly when no one takes them seriously as I am certain no one has

*Who do you think you are bull shitting with this nonsense?

*Nothing is what so keep your dangerously naive suggestions to yourself. Do yourself a huge favor and familarize yourself with human nature pronto before making anymore suggestions. Because so far the only stupidity I have come across is the suggestions you have made.

*EyeR would do nothing of the sort, he is a talker not a doer, otherwise he would have done something by now. He hopes to intimidate people by claiming to be able to do this and that. Someone who is actually about doing what they say they can do.

*As I have said before you are not as wise as you think you are. In fact, it is my opinion that you have things completely upside down regarding how smart you are compared to others. When someone presents you with a point you can not refute. You begin talking about things that have no relevance to the topic being discussed. You also throw in a small bit of truth to make your bs seem believable and others are realizing it. No, I have repeatedly demonstrated the ability to see through your bs, expose it, and destroy it and you do not like it as if I care. I do not need to conduct research to know when a person is speaking bull shit so why would I?

  • do have an idea of how wise you consider yourself to be. Everyone on the forums does, most people just do not tell you about yourself in an attempt to be civil. I on the other hand will tell you about yourself. Because you need it and also need someone to take a sledgehammer to your ego and smash it into tiny pieces. A job I consider as my responsibility.

And by Boonejohn97 *Stop using your region as an excuse or toughness. I have a scare in the back of my head from purposely stepping in the way of a metal garden, cracking my skull open and lucky to be alive. Did that happen to you? I bet not. Animals are easy. We literally fight bears here and Russia do we brag? No. So stop.

*Scarab a speeding car may hurt but id rather be hit by a train then take a bear litteraly your trying make it as if Australians are complete badasses and survivalist. Your not, your ancestors yes

*And yet I'm no survivalist or badass. So stop faking.

*Because all I see is shit flying out of your mouth, even if you did something your the dangerous person then with nerve gas and all.

*Okay listen the shut fuck up eyeR

*No stop trying to act as if your the super intelligent being, your not.

*I don't want to be killed in my sleep, trying live a normal life, and defiantly not because some dumbass like yourself think weapons are unneeded maybe not all but some are required. Now shut the hell up and stop acting like you know best, we dont but we want to make sure are safe before anything happens. We admit it.

*A discard actually will not cause any damage unless we are near air locks, air compressors, and flammable areas, may I ask what you know about a discharge? Because you don't seem to know shit.

*If your so smart, why do you sound so stupid. I've seen your other post on non military subjects and yet that you have good point, when it comes to military, you dont know jack shit

*You sound like an A+ grade idiot when you don't consider the safety of others.

How is it, that these two members have insulted and personally attacked several posters in that thread and not been banned? The recipient of many of insults and personal attacks appears to have been banned however. Something does not add up here.

  Last edited by:  Denise Noyes (Asgardian)  on Mar 30, 17 / Tau 05, 01 13:32 UTC, Total number of edits: 1 time
Reason: typo

Mar 30, 17 / Tau 05, 01 15:28 UTC

Yeah, both parties were equally guilty of being jerks about it. Thus it does seem one-sided on the banning, like the moderators are taking a side.

BUT, we will see how this plays out. As long as we keep on the mods and admins about it to finally get something written down in rules about enforcement, that's a victory for them, of sorts.


While I agree that EyeR had all the social capabilities of a rabid raccoon, he knew his shit (or at least seemed to know his shit).

nihylum de was more passionate than anything, and as a result had a tendency to overexpress himself (herself?).

Either way, right now I should point out that they are only MUTED from responding. They can still read all the forums. None of this is secure from being read by anyone with access to the Internet. I have tested that personally.

What are the duration of bans?

I ask because it seems like a good number of the more prolific posters are getting banned for loss of temper and I was curious if these bans were permanent, or for a duration, and what the overall general rule is when it comes to banned members.

So, how long can we expect folks to be banned when they do something stupid? In general, I mean.

Probably wouldn't be bad to post a locked post somewhere with the expiration dates of the bans for those members who are banned, if bans aren't permanent (which would be monumentally stupid in most cases).

To be clear, I have not taken a side on these bans, because to be frank I really don't actually care. EyeR and nihylum de seemed decent enough folks, if not exactly self-controlled, and I doubt they will be truly harmed by being banned, although they would have every right to be irritated by it.

What is irritating to me, personally, is the fact that there do not appear to be rules. Sure, you can point to the rules, but they aren't being applied equally to everyone by any measure. Rules applied arbitrarily are not rules, they are guidelines, and can be ignored provided sufficient social capital. People like EyeR and nihylum de do not believe in social capital, believing that their actions and knowledge should suffice to demonstrate their value to an organization. (For the record, I think they are wrong, but that is not relevant to my point.)

Right now we have a problem. The same problem we have had in the month(s?) I have been on these forums. There is a very clear distinction between those who have power, and those who do not. This may be of necessity, but that doesn't make it any less irritating, like sand in the bathing suit.

If this is to be a democracy, eventually, how about allowing we citizens the opportunity to some self-determination in this limited instance. Set up an area of the forum for people who are banned to be able to make their cases and then people can vote whether they should remain banned or be allowed back in. I had a similar setup back on a forum I used to run. Moderators will provide their evidence for the ban, and then the accused gets their say, then the people (perhaps 5 selected by both parties, to keep privacy concerns in mind) get the final vote. Tie votes indicate no change.

The alternative is to leave it the way it is and foment unrest every time someone gets banned who some people actually liked. I don't see that going well at all.


Goodmorning people, or good afternoon\night, look at your wristwatch and choose. This is an interesting discussion indeed, forgive my ignorance, but before banning people I expect, at least, a warning to be sent them via private message, is this how it works?

I expect the warnings were given here on the forums as most folks don't have easy contact outside the forums, especially EyeR (who refused to use non-secure communications, except this forum, which was ironic). Either that, or warnings were not given. Either way, given the quantity of people who have been banned, I think it is fair for those of us who remain to ask, "Ok, are they gone for good, or will they be allowed back in the playpen once they've had a chance to cool off and figure out how to behave themselves?"


  Updated  on Mar 30, 17 / Tau 05, 01 17:56 UTC, Total number of edits: 1 time
Reason: Combing all my posts from other threads into this one

Mar 30, 17 / Tau 05, 01 18:59 UTC

"Ok, are they gone for good, or will they be allowed back in the playpen once they've had a chance to cool off and figure out how to behave themselves?"

This is a question bearing immediate response. Really, this is a question that should already be answered on an official FAQ page, forum terms of service page, or in a sticked information thread.

Mar 30, 17 / Tau 05, 01 19:12 UTC

Moving my original post here, as suggested by mod Rainbow.

I would like to add my voice to this concern. The banning of people without perceived cause by the rest of us raises anxiety. I agree with petrv about the Asgardians that got banned seeming somewhat aggressive in their expression, still, they have the right to their personality unless they were harming or causing a threat to others.

Since we are not privy to the reason why they got banned, all we can do is speculate, and that's never a good thing. This is the reason why we need transparency.

Also, people should have access to a second opportunity. Remember that we all come from very different backgrounds, and we might need to adjust to the new culture we are creating here in Asgardia. Maybe people will need to learn to disagree respectfully. Still, since I can't tell the reason why our fellow Asgardians got banned, I feel they should be reinstated.

Otherwise, please, explain the reason why this is happening so that we can have peace of mind.

Mar 30, 17 / Tau 05, 01 19:16 UTC

Sooo.... I followed the link Jason posted to the rules of the forums. Very interesting read in light of the circumstances.

Discrimination. No discrimination of any kind shall be allowed. Topics and posts containing inappropriate remarks based on one’s race, sex, nationality, age, culture, religion, political belief and sexuality can be edited to remove offensive content, or even deleted without prior notice, and might result in a swift and permanent ban from the forum.

Personal Attacks. No personal attacks against other users of the forum shall be allowed. This includes (and is not limited to) insults, inappropriate remarks and excessive aggressive behavior towards your fellow Asgardian. Please ensure to apply common sense and respect the views of your fellow Asgardians. In case of a disagreement, please keep the debate amicable. Escalation of a discussion may result in your post being edited to remove offensive content, or even in the thread being locked.

Ban. Repeated actions against the aforementioned rules may result in a permanent ban from the forum.

Ok... as far as I can tell, no one actually followed procedure here; neither mods nor members.

First of all, a lot of people's posts really should have been edited first. In the process, it would have been much more clear to people exactly what was and was not appropriate behavior, because I have noticed in those cases where a mod did edit a post they gave the reasons behind the edit.
Secondly, the threads which had degenerated into bitch-fests should have been locked, if procedure was being followed. As far as I can tell, all those threads are still open.
Lastly, the wording here is quite horrible. 'Discrimination', 'inappropriate', and 'excessive aggressive' are all horribly vague, and prone to misinterpretation due to different cultural and socioeconomic backgrounds, and religious beliefs. The rules should be far more clear about the way things are really being run. "You will be warned if we (administration and mods) deem content is inappropriate and we will edit it out. If you continue and fail to heed the warning, we may delete your posts and you will be banned in accordance with the severity of your misbehavior." Very simple, very honest, and very much the way things are generally being handled around here.

You can't sit idly by and wait for people to explode in frustration, then get mad at them for exploding while ignoring the entire buildup that preceded it. If the mods and admins want to do right by everyone, this is a serious mea culpa situation. Everyone involved in the bickering, banning, and otherwise should just be a grownup and admit that mistakes were made, put things back as they were, and everyone goes forward having learned a lesson on behavior.


Mar 30, 17 / Tau 05, 01 19:39 UTC

While I agree that there is no indication established procedures were followed in the case of EyeR's ban, I would prefer not to speculate because there appears to be no indications of what happened except for that stylish (BANNED) next to their name.

As far as we know, the appropriate procedures were followed and communications to the offending participants were conducted by e-mail. Of course, as far as we know a gremlin snuck into the server and banned EyeR for not paying the troll toll.

Mar 31, 17 / Tau 06, 01 00:05 UTC

And to add to what has been said, there has to be a warning system to indicate to people that they might be stepping over the line. Some people may get hot-headed and not realize they are being aggressive. Maybe, if we warn people that their behavior is unacceptable and that they need to de-escalate, most situations won't reach the point where the member will be banned. And if it does, we are going to have a record of behavior by that member who didn't bother to monitor their behavior.

At that point, if someone gets banned because they chose to ignore warnings, well, we'll know they asked for it. But before that, people should be given a chance to rectify.

Mar 31, 17 / Tau 06, 01 00:15 UTC


  Updated  on May 25, 17 / Can 05, 01 18:45 UTC, Total number of edits: 1 time
Reason: I'm leaving Asgardia

Mar 31, 17 / Tau 06, 01 00:56 UTC

As requested by the moderators, I have copied / consolidated a summary of my posts in another thread on the same topic:

For what Asgardia is (and will be for the medium term at least) - an online nation - banning from the forum does seem somewhat akin to being black bagged and excommunicated or stripped of citizenship.

One of the members recently banned, whilst admittedly abrasive at times, is clearly a very intelligent person with a passion for the project. I think if they walk away, Asgardia may be worse for it. That being said, I have no idea of the circumstances that led to the decision to ban this person from the forum. Something really obscene and horrific may have occurred. But that is the problem isn't it - we don't know. There is seemingly no transparency, accountability or avenue of appeal with these decisions.

I'm not saying we need a blow by blow description of the "he said, she said" that led to a decision to ban someone. But a general description of the reason (eg. Repeated abusive conduct to other members) may alleviate what seems to be wide held concerns on this issue.

There was a argument from one of the moderators not wanting to air someone's personal dirty laundry for privacy reasons, but I could equally flip that argument and ask is it fair for somone to be punished in a seemingly secret quasi-judicial process with no right of appeal. You can't blame the members of this forum being a little nervous about this issue. Hell, I am. I've had a couple of "robust" discussions with other Asgardians. Will I log on one day and find I have been banished?

I'm sure there is a reasonable middle ground to be found... but in needs to happen quickly since uncertainty, fear and mistrust of leadership in societies has a tendency for exponential growth.

Mar 31, 17 / Tau 06, 01 01:07 UTC


Why we do we assume there weren't prior communication?

Because when there is a lack of information, we are free to assume whatever we want. If there are no givens, your brain will fill in the gaps automatically -- and that's a psychological fact. Anyways, the issue is not about communication (although that plays a role) the real issue here is transparency and consistency.

Mar 31, 17 / Tau 06, 01 01:41 UTC


You listed all that and failed to list any attacks on EyeR's person. Some of those were legit questions and one was directed at his suggestion that Asgardia have no weapons. Which puts the lives of others at risk and EyeR has no right to put any life at risk other than his own! Also, while blunt telling someone to shut up with the empty threats. Is an attempt to stop the behaviour which ultimately got him banned. While some of you liked his suggestions and/or that he knew what he was talking about. That in no way excuses him from the responsibility of how he behaved or the consequences associated with that behaviour.

Yes, I said I sure as hell would not want to live on a space station with those who haven't adapted their way of thinking to the new environment and dangers associated with it. I also made sure to make it clear that it was not due to personal issues with anyone. It would simply be too dangerous and I do not want to take any chances of something bad happening because. Some people still think and behave as if they are still on Earth.

Now, I realize I am likely public enemy number one on the forum and if that is so, then so be it. I did not join this project nor was I born to be popular with folks, I joined because I agreed with it's goal. So, when I come across suggestions that are contrary to that goal I speak up. Right now given how some of you have responded to people having been banned. I can not possibly see this project working out. Not when folks are quick to excuse someone from their responsibility to follow rules set down for them. Just because they like their ideas or how much they know. The first step towards building a better society starts with holding folks accountable for their actions regardless of how much they know or you like their ideas.

So EyeR made a good suggestion in the eyes of some of you or others thought he knew his stuff. He still acted contrary to the rules and had to be made to face the consequences. I would expect nothing less in my own case should I act as he did

Mar 31, 17 / Tau 06, 01 02:23 UTC


I am obviously speaking for myself here.

I understand your concern (if you allow me to call it that). I don't think the issue here is to defend the people who got banned, per se. But to ensure that we have a system where the actions taken against a member are transparent and to give members the opportunity to advocate for themselves (a second chance) before being permanently banned.

I would think that if you would have been one of the people banned you would like a second chance to come back to the forums if you were that committed to the cause.

I think this is because of the lack of information. Maybe EyeR's ban is the result of the accumulation of various things but since we are left in the dark, we can only go by what we have publicly available. If the people who got banned deserved to be banned, then so be it. But having a transparent system that gives people access to redress, if the transgression isn't too horrific, is only fair in my opinion.

Now, I realize I am likely public enemy number one on the forum and if that is so, then so be it.

I have not witness personal attacks against you as far as this issue goes; simply comparisons as to how similar the behaviors of the two of you were during that conversation, yet only one person being banned. That doesn't immediately make you "public enemy number one." Actually, you have been barely mentioned.

This might not count for much, but I have nothing against you. As a matter of fact, I feel totally indifferent toward you since we have not interacted at all. So you can't say that the "forum" sees you as persona non grata. That's just not true.

Also, keep in mind, this issue started when nihylum got banned out of the blue, and just got magnified when EyeR was banned without we understanding why.

The issue goes beyond whatever personal disagreement may exist between yourself and other Asgardians. This is a systemic issue that needs to be addressed in order to prevent anxiety among us members of this forum -- including you.

  Last edited by:  Yoevelyn Rodriguez (Asgardian, Comm Assistant)  on Mar 31, 17 / Tau 06, 01 02:31 UTC, Total number of edits: 1 time
Reason: Spelling

Mar 31, 17 / Tau 06, 01 02:43 UTC

While I refuse to take sides on the matter of banning, from some of the banned members I have seen, they have been warned prior, and that the banning is a result of repeated offenses against the rules of posting. Note that I said "repeated", being that the history of aggressive posts had probably been taken into account for several of the bans. And before anyone jumps to conclusions, I use the term "aggressive" to mean anything that can be considered slandering, character bashing, threatening, or for all practical purposes going against any of the posted rules of the forum. Do I agree that only EyeR should have been banned, no, am I surprised that he was banned, not in the least. I have been a part of several threads where EyeR had been warned by several Mods and Admins regarding use of insulting and derogatory posts. EyeR was knowledgeable in several areas, either that or he was a master of Wikipedia and Google searching, but it doesn't allow for the manner of posting he had become more and more frequently been using. In regards to the personal defense thread, it was merely one instance of such. I am not arguing for the banning or not banning, merely bringing light to the possibility that it's not just random banning or a case of wrong place wrong time. But all in all this is just my opinion and observation, everyone is entitled to their opinion, just not to bash everyone else's when it contradicts their own.

Mar 31, 17 / Tau 06, 01 03:07 UTC

I know, for my part, that I have witnessed at least three people get banned and have no real clue about specifics. A similar event would be if I was living in an apartment building and noticed three people stopped coming home. It is unnerving.

This whole process of secrecy and shit happening behind closed doors and no one willing to take accountability is what I have a problem with. We complain about mods, mods say it isn't up to them and pass it up to Lena (I think that's the name), who doesn't respond anywhere. One of the untouchables, apparently.

Not a conspiracy or anything of that nature, just a complete clusterfuck of administration. If these are the people who are gunning to be in charge of things when Asgardia is up and running, that causes me to question my membership. I know I am just one guy, and my individual importance is virtually nil, but I'm a pretty tolerant guy, and if I feel this way, then that's really bad.

Bad communications will kill every single project that suffers from it. Whether it is lies, deceit, self-defensive misdirections, or just not knowing better, those are all bad communication.

KHJ (Yes, the Captcha for this post.)

Mar 31, 17 / Tau 06, 01 04:46 UTC

Hey Yovy,

I do not actually think I am public enemy number one on the forum, I was just being silly, in all honesty I am the guy in the room no one notices. Anyway, While I fully admit to breaking the rules and having been warned about having done so. I can say with certainty that, I have in no way done anything worth being banned over. As people get to know me they realize that, often times what they consider as me personally insulting folks is actually my naturally blunt manner of speech shining through. I never was very good at hiding it, I mean it is who I am and I do not feel like myself unless I speak like that. I also have the philosophy that being blunt is at times called for. Like when dealing with someone who is unwilling to see any point but there own. EyeR being banned was quite sudden but he was directly warned on the forums in the conceal carry topic. So, I would not say there is an issue with transparency. I would just say people were just so shocked because they did not expect such a thing to happen and that made them anxious