Discussion It seems that funeral cry got banned, does anybody know a reason?

[Esokabat]

I understand why a lot of people here may empathize with FuneralCry, and there is no doubt that she is suffering, but I'm very glad this decision was taken. Even barring her rhetoric, her presence was extremely divisive and beckoned for drama, and she sort of reveled in it. This forum seems to have a relatively easy-going atmosphere except when FuneralCry is in the picture. I began to feel unsafe when it came to disagreeing with this anti-life rhetoric, and when it came to trying to see the good in life. The nature of her posts was also really indirect and passive aggressive at times, leaving people to worry about saying something wrong, when they are on a website where they should be able to feel like they won't be looked down upon for venting their problems. Her posts which vaguely condemn posts about self harm come to mind. I hope she can find another outlet, but her usage of this outlet has proven destructive for countless others. It shouldn't be solely about her.

Yes. I worded the same thing as she should not use this forum as her own private vomit bucket. This forum is not just about her.
her negative influence was overpowering as she didn't respect the forum and the people in it

 

[Life Is My Coffin]

I don't know why but this hit me hard. I'll miss you FuneralCry. I wanted to read more of your thoughts.

She will be back in a month (unfortunately)

 

[DeIetedUser4739]

Can't she just make a new account?

 

[Chinaski]

Can't she just make a new account?

Strongly suspect it would be quite easy to recognise

 

[qw3rty259]

Correct, we will reassess in a month's time

Btw, do admins revise their decision after a month on every banned user or it's just some FC's privilege for some reason?

 

[Dot]

This actually raises concern, because the "auto ban" suggests these decisions are automated and out of the hands of staff when in reality each warning is given by staff depending on how a violation is perceived to have taken place. It would be more honest to say "we banned x user" than to pass the responsibility for such a decision over to some mythical automated system.

This is not a criticism of the decision fwiw, my views on FC, and the leeway she has been kindly afforded to the detriment of the wider forum for over two years, are probably well-known at this point and she is not here to exercise a right to reply so l won't retread it but, speaking more generally, anyone who assumes a broad online community should be moulded exclusively in their own image, routinely demands that content is tailored to their very narrow and specific requirements, very regularly casts broad disdain towards anyone who expresses even polite disagreement with their rigid worldview and appeals for then to be treated as an ideological enemy who must be shunned, and is allowed to do this over a period of *years*, will ultimately do damage to that community.

Thnk = 2 sdes of th/ sme coin tbf

Sme membrs r concsly & manully bannd & othr membrs hve bans 'triggrd' whn a warnng tkes thm ovr 100%

E.g membr Jo wh/ = fixr Cathrne son ws autobannd bcse of 2x 50% violatns & th/ mod givng th/ 2nd warnng dd nt realse th/ membr wld b bannd or ws bannd bcse = ws autmatc whn fcusing on tht specfc 2nd warnng -- tht ws also th/ reasn Y causs fr thr bannng wre nt realsd untl yrs l8tr bcse hd cn cght up in th/ autmatn

S/ thre = defntly an 'auto-ban' elmnt bcse th/ mod gve th/ finl warnng basd only on th/ stuatn whch ws presnt @ th/ tme bt lke u sy FC ws takn ovr 100% bcse of th/ prevs warnngs tht hd alrdy bn issud prevsly b/ mods & hr ban ws rsult of cumul8tve affct of tht discretnry histry

Mods hd also dscussd aspcts of hr postng wth hr multple tmes in ordr t/ facilt8 chnge in hr b-havr bt slf d/ nt nd t/ tll u tht thre wre stll issus

"Stop sanctioned suicide" are having the best time of their lives knowing that DB has CBT and now FC is banned

Slf wld easly belve tht thse ppl wld celbr8 th/ ctb & suffrng of a usr - wld nt b th/ 1st tme

Wld advse nt cncernng urslf 2 mch ovr thm tho

Don't you understand that life isn't always about following a strict set of rules? Every situation is unique, and applying numerous hard restrictions on behavior without considering this makes any system rigid. In this particular situation, the consequences of such a reaction may be fatal. There is always an option to introduce a set of soft rules, the violation of which may result in account suspension according to the moderators' decision. Please.

Mods tke all of ths in2 accnt & hve bn doin tht wth FC as wll as wth othr usrs bt evn wth levls of undrstndng & flexblty thse rles r stll thre & dspite evrythng thre wre stll enuf warnngs accrud fr th/ ban t/ happn

Mods r oftn navg8tng flexblty & objectvty espclly on a frum wth ppl wth sch complx strggles & slf promse tht = nt easy -- thre = alwys a cse of weighng up th/ intrsts of th/ cmmunty vs takng awy wht = oftn a nt-commnly-accessble copng mechnsm frm a bannd persn

Slf persnlly d/ nt agree wth assessmnts tht sh/ gts off of watchng ppl di tho - slf jst persnlly thnk tht sh/ = in sch drk plce tht b-ing arnd ctb tlk = all tht sh/ rel8tes 2 -- slf defntly hve a simlr issu

Can l ask what will be different in a month? If her conduct is ban-worthy now it will still be so in four weeks.

Bd mght gve dffrnt answr t/ ths as obvsly mods r nt monlith etc bt fr slf if thre = chnce of gnuine chnge in b-havr thn slf thnk tht havng sme spce & tme t/ reflct on consqunces wld prbbly bettr facilt8 tht

Bt tht spce cn b usefl fr mods t/ assess thngs as wll as fr bannd & warnd usrs

Btw, do admins revise their decision after a month on every banned user or it's just some FC's privilege for some reason?

= nt a privlge = mods mke dcisns on cse-2-cse bsis whn needd

Sme stuatns r 'blck & whte' simpl bt othr ppl hve bn givn spce fr re-evaluatn b4

 

[Chinaski]

Btw, do admins revise their decision after a month on every banned user or it's just some FC's privilege for some reason?

Can say I've been banned and reinstated previously as this was essentially down to a disagreement with one mod who is no longer with us, he admitted his error and we put it behind us and imo it's commendable for mods to review their decisions and rectify errors, they are ultimately members just like the rest of us and can make hasty judgements. I also know of another user who was banned and reinstated, again fairly, having lashed out quite severely at certain quarters on here who were very keen to play the victim in a dishonest and manipulative fashion imo.

I would personally agree that there is nothing to review in this case, the qualifying behaviours outlined by staff and others have been evident for years and are objectively harmful in my view, it's an unrelenting pattern which will only continue and it doesn't warrant review but that's just my view.

 

[rainwillneverstop]

Thnk = 2 sdes of th/ sme coin tbf

Sme membrs r concsly & manully bannd & othr membrs hve bans 'triggrd' whn a warnng tkes thm ovr 100%

E.g membr Jo wh/ = fixr Cathrne son ws autobannd bcse of 2x 50% violatns & th/ mod givng th/ 2nd warnng dd nt realse th/ membr wld b bannd or ws bannd bcse = ws autmatc whn fcusing on tht specfc 2nd warnng -- tht ws also th/ reasn Y causs fr thr bannng wre nt realsd untl yrs l8tr bcse hd cn cght up in th/ autmatn

S/ thre = defntly an 'auto-ban' elmnt bcse th/ mod gve th/ finl warnng basd only on th/ stuatn whch ws presnt @ th/ tme bt lke u sy FC ws takn ovr 100% bcse of th/ prevs warnngs tht hd alrdy bn issud prevsly b/ mods & hr ban ws rsult of cumul8tve affct of tht discretnry histry

Mods hd also dscussd aspcts of hr postng wth hr multple tmes in ordr t/ facilt8 chnge in hr b-havr bt slf d/ nt nd t/ tll u tht thre wre stll issus




Slf wld easly belve tht thse ppl wld celbr8 th/ ctb & suffrng of a usr - wld nt b th/ 1st tme

Wld advse nt cncernng urslf 2 mch ovr thm tho



Mods tke all of ths in2 accnt & hve bn doin tht wth FC as wll as wth othr usrs bt evn wth levls of undrstndng & flexblty thse rles r stll thre & dspite evrythng thre wre stll enuf warnngs accrud fr th/ ban t/ happn

Mods r oftn navg8tng flexblty & objectvty espclly on a frum wth ppl wth sch complx strggles & slf promse tht = nt easy -- thre = alwys a cse of weighng up th/ intrsts of th/ cmmunty vs takng awy wht = oftn a nt-commnly-accessble copng mechnsm frm a bannd persn

Slf persnlly d/ nt agree wth assessmnts tht sh/ gts off of watchng ppl di tho - slf jst persnlly thnk tht sh/ = in sch drk plce tht b-ing arnd ctb tlk = all tht sh/ rel8tes 2 -- slf defntly hve a simlr issu



Bd mght gve dffrnt answr t/ ths as obvsly mods r nt monlith etc bt fr slf if thre = chnce of gnuine chnge in b-havr thn slf thnk tht havng sme spce & tme t/ reflct on consqunces wld prbbly bettr facilt8 tht

Bt tht spce cn b usefl fr mods t/ assess thngs as wll as fr bannd & warnd usrs



= nt a privlge = mods mke dcisns on cse-2-cse bsis whn needd

Sme stuatns r 'blck & whte' simpl bt othr ppl hve bn givn spce fr re-evaluatn b4

Translated:
Chinaski said:
This actually raises concern, because the "auto ban" suggests these decisions are automated and out of the hands of staff when in reality each warning is given by staff depending on how a violation is perceived to have taken place. It would be more honest to say "we banned x user" than to pass the responsibility for such a decision over to some mythical automated system.

This is not a criticism of the decision fwiw, my views on FC, and the leeway she has been kindly afforded to the detriment of the wider forum for over two years, are probably well-known at this point and she is not here to exercise a right to reply so l won't retread it but, speaking more generally, anyone who assumes a broad online community should be moulded exclusively in their own image, routinely demands that content is tailored to their very narrow and specific requirements, very regularly casts broad disdain towards anyone who expresses even polite disagreement with their rigid worldview and appeals for then to be treated as an ideological enemy who must be shunned, and is allowed to do this over a period of *years*, will ultimately do damage to that community.

Think it's 2 sides of the same coin tbf.

Some members are consciously and manually banned and other members have bans "triggered" when a warning takes them over 100%

E.g. member Joe who was fixer Cathrine's son was autobanned because of 2 x 50% violations and the mod giving the 2nd warning did not realize the member would be banned or was banned because it was automatic when focusing on that specific 2nd warning - That was also the reason why cause for the banning were not realized until years later because it had been caught up in the automation.

So there's definitely an "auto-ban" element because the mod gave the final warning, based only on the situation which was present at the time but like you say, FC was taken over 100% because of the previous warnings that had already been issued previously by mods and her ban was a result of cumulative affect of that discretionary history.

Mods had also discussed aspects of her posting with her multiple times, in order to facilitate change in her behaviour but I do not need to tell you that there were still issues.

OrphicEnd said:
"Stop sanctioned suicide" are having the best time of their lives knowing that DB has CBT and now FC is banned

I would easily believe that these people would celebrate the ctb and suffering of a user - would not be the first time.

Would advise not concerning yourself too much over them tho.

bernara said:
Don't you understand that life isn't always about following a strict set of rules? Every situation is unique, and applying numerous hard restrictions on behavior without considering this makes any system rigid. In this particular situation, the consequences of such a reaction may be fatal. There is always an option to introduce a set of soft rules, the violation of which may result in account suspension according to the moderators' decision. Please.

Mods take all this into account, and have been doing that with FC as well as with other users but even with levels of understanding and flexibility, these rules are still there and despite everything there were still enough warnings accrued for the ban to happen.

Mods are often navigating flexibility and objectivity especially on a forum with people with such complex struggles and I promise that it's not easy - there's always a case of weighting up the interests of the community vs taking away what is often a not-commonly-accessible coping mechanism from a banned person.

I personally do not agree with assessments that she gets off of watching people die tho - I just personally think that she is in such a dark place that being around ctb talk is all she relates to - I definitely have a similar issue.

Chinaski said:
Can l ask what will be different in a month? If her conduct is ban-worthy now it will still be so in four weeks.

Bed might give a different answer to this as obviously mods are not monolith etc but for myself, if there's a chance of genuine change in behaviour then I think that having some space and time to reflect on consequences would probably better facilitate that.

But that space can be useful for mods to asses things as well as for banned and warned users.

qw3rty259 said:
Btw, do admins revise their decision after a month on every banned user or it's just some FC's privilege for some reason?

It's not a privilege, it's mods make decisions on a case-to-case basis when needed.

Some situations are 'black and white' simple but other people have been given space for revaluation before.

 

[Jay Sea]

Having seen the update, I commend the admin team on making the responsible decision. I have long advocated that we should prioritise the wellbeing of the entire community, not just one person, but I didn't think it would ever happen.

Firstly, we do not need a prominent member espousing lunatic fringe attitudes and giving opponents of the website fodder to allege that we are a death cult. The sheer power of mass media and politicians has regularly threatened the existence of this website.

Secondly, there are entire groups who have been routinely intimidated and berated who will now feel much safer here; namely parents and anyone who is considering recovery at any level.

Over the years, FC's character underwent a startling descent from a melancholic young woman to a raging death fetishist who advocated for child suicide, threw tantrums against the very existence of the "recovery" forum (forgetting that her former self actually used it) and railed against anyone giving or receiving support not explicitly pertaining to death. If we treat the lives of others with any respect, this is dangerous online behaviour for a purportedly safe space.

She became increasingly unresponsive to feedback and largely stopped interacting with others beyond generic and mechanical commiserations, yet somehow always attracted a vocal cult following dedicating itself to excusing her behaviour. The claim was that her aggression was mere mental illness, that those offended by her attacks should just ignore and that she is 'just venting'. FC would artfully drop inflammatory posts then step back to watch the community descend into pages of heavy in-fighting. I felt that she viewed us, our lives and our deaths as mere entertainment.

Autism is an extremely common ailment on this forum and yet I cannot name any other member even remotely like FC in their conduct. I mentioned previously that I had supported someone reverse a ban; it was someone with bipolar who made a bunch of unhinged posts in a state of mania but was deeply ashamed and regretful afterwards. FC, by contrast, would only ever repeat her attacks on others and then play the victim in response to backlash.

In summary, it has been sad and sobering to witness FC descend from a harmless, wounded personality to a destructive influence on the entire community. I just ask that everyone consider the good of all in the community and not fall into the trap of endlessly pandering to someone whose bleak personality is not compatible with any sort of community standards.

if it is indeed true that FC's character has changed for the worse due to her time spent on the forum perhaps a break from it wouldn't be such a bad thing

 

[Bed]

Can l ask what will be different in a month? If her conduct is ban-worthy now it will still be so in four weeks.

every mod has their own opinion on it and unique views so i think giving it some time to think about is fair. as @Dot also said it can be a good break for her as well so she can reflect on her behaviour regardless of what we decide.

 

[Bed]

That's fine but slightly misses the point which is that ultimately there's no such thing as an "auto ban", to be clear l make no argument for her reinstatement whatsoever.

i'm aware, i'm just saying why charlie was phrasing it that way.

 

[Chinaski]

every mod has their own opinion on it and unique views so i think giving it some time to think about is fair. as @Dot also said it can be a good break for her as well so she can reflect on her behaviour regardless of what we decide.

No disrespect to yourself as a person but I'm reading between the lines on this and I'm confident l can predict how this will play out.

 

[Bed]

No disrespect to yourself as a person but I'm reading between the lines on this and I'm confident l can predict how this will play out.

understandable. trying to be transparent as possible here.. i really don't think she deserves a 100th chance though and will argue against a reinstatement considering she showed no signs of wanting to really change her behaviour until real consequences were laid down. wanting to only change once something has been taken away from you is not a genuine act of change but a forceful one and because of this ive disagreed a lot with her coming back.

 

[Bed]

locking this thread. people have made their arguments and we will take them into consideration. nothing more really needs to be said on this matter for the time being.

 

[RainAndSadness]

locking this thread. people have made their arguments and we will take them into consideration. nothing more really needs to be said on this matter for the time being.

Actually, no we don't because if we ban or unban someone isn't up to democratic debate.

And, just to be fully transparent about this, I couldn't care less about the popular consensus around her ban. Also, us going back to this decision in one month doesn't mean she got a one mont ban. She is banned, period but she appealed and we don't immediately review appeals right when someone was banned unless there was a mod error. There was no mod error in this case. The decision is solid based on rule violations. But people have a right to appeal and we will look at the appeal without any bias in a month, because letting a month pass makes sense in such instances, before we return to this case and discuss the situation. This isn't the first time we give someone a few weeks until we look at their appeal, it's actually standard procedure just so we can look at this issue from a more distant and rational angle in the future, when some time has passed and it gives the banned member time to reflect as well and this is a good condition to negotiate someone's appeal. There is no plan to reinstate her in one month, like this isn't fixed, I just want to make that clear. It depends on the outcome of the discussion. And we will discuss it internally and we'll see what's gonna be conclusion in the future and that also depends a lot on the degree of cooperation on behalf of the banned user. If someone is unbanned after they've successfully appealed their ban, they won't start at zero warning points. If we realize we have been lied to and agreements have been broken, we can reintstate the ban with like 2 mouse clicks. Just to clarify the situation.

EDIT:
And yes, I believe in rehabilitation and second chances rather than punishment (I've made this very clear in the past) and we have reinstated banned members in the past when we were confident it's the right decision and when we had reason to believe they genuinly understood and accepted their past misconduct, regularly, and my philosophy on this matter applies here as well. FC isn't the exception, how we're handling this situation is the norm, which again throws any accusation regarding "special treatment" out the window.