Home Forums Discussions General Discussion Ban

Hi fellow users. After much thought as to whether it would be beyond the scope of my authority, I have decided to ban Andrechuk from the board for at least 72 hours. I felt it was in the best interest of the user board to not allow him to continue to make his sarcastic remarks at the expense of others. This community while sometimes having some heated discussions has always been about the betterment of AC and its users.

Please feel free to comment and let me know if you agree.

Agreed.

This board is composed of diverse members, sometimes with disagreements, occasionally tempers will flare. But overall, respect for each other (even in the midst of a disagreement) has been shown.

Anyone who consistently does not show that respect is not welcome here.

Good job Bert.

Gene

I was beginning to wonder what was taking so long. . .

JamesNT

Gene said it well.
I think this board has plenty of room for expressions of divergent interests and viewpoints. As someone who sometimes tends to the sarcastic side, I encourage tolerance for that and many other behaviors.
On the other hand, there are some limits to what behavior we should (as a group) consider acceptable. Andrechuk made 55 posts in less than 24 hours, several of which were disrespectful or downright hostile to other posters, and in fact seemed designed to be disruptive. The intensity and frequency of his negativity makes a slower, more measured approach difficult.
This board is generally so positive and collegial; I would hate to see it go the way of so many others that became unreadable or defunct based on the disruptive, negative behavior of a few participants.
If he can agree to meet the general standard of respect and civility that is shown here, then perhaps he can return and make a positive contribution.

as this board is being hosted by AC, I think that moderators have right to be a bit selective, in controlling posts. It saddens me that this action needed (rightly) to be taken.

Bert, I have found, as no doubt you have, that in these situations 72 hours won't help. Consider 72 days. He has neither asked for or provided any help on the board, just snarky comments.

Actually, I made it permanent. You are correct.

Good job Bert. Doctors are full of sarcasim and we can only take so much. Keep up the good work. This overworked doc in Findlay, Ohio appreciates you!

I generally check the board but miss an occasional day or two. I saw Andrechuk's posting and thought they were a little weird, but not that bad. When I saw the post about the ban, I then went back and reviewed all of his posts. Verrry strange. What was templates with radio buttons about? That bordered on bizarre.

He jumped in with a familiarity that was fine but then went on to argue several times. 57 posts in 2 days? Unheard of, and frankly makes me wonder if he has time to practice medicine. I put a great deal of thought into posts, as do most people here. To post that frequently is somewhat disconcerting. OK, I suppose a few of my posts weren't that well thought out, but we can ignore those

Yes, I agree with the banning. I think it was a very strange occurrence and teaches us how our civility on this board can be tested, but also how we generally understand each other and get along.

I haven't had a chance to weigh in due to the crazy schedule today, but I support you Bert in your decision as well. Although, only a short timer, I have to say until this incident, I have been overwhelmed at the collegiality and can't say enough about the help I have been offered/given in such a short time.
I think this forum is one of the facets of AC that is quite unique and really is a plus for the product.
Thank you for all your efforts for all you do-- day in and day out.

I was beginning to wonder what that guys agenda was.

I agree with Bert.

Agreed. People should be held accountable for their actions, whether here or anywhere.

TROLL

Greg

Would be a helluva bot.

I think it is totally wrong to ban this guy. It is not your private forum, you know. Guy said he was a trial user, AC just lost a client. He did not show certain respect, well, may be he is an @##hole. So what? It is not a reason to ban.

He was banned for posting 57 times in 48 hrs and not saying anything productive. In short, a waste of time.

Dr. Wolfson, in your opinion, what should constitute a ban?

"The Amazing Charts User Board is for users to be able to discuss issues with other users.

No anonymous posting are allowed (too much spam and advertisements appear when we allow this). All users must maintain a valid e-mail address. Listing your home page is not required but is encouraged.

Play nice. Abusive posters will be banned."

This is from FAQ from the company. This is not a private forum. We are AC customers and we are discussing our issues. It is up to administration to ban. And you still can disagree but then you can always switch to eclinical works and chat there. My point is that it is not up to Bert to ban anybody. I am sorry, I am not much interested in discussing this topic. Besides, I am afraid that if I disagree with Bert 57 times in two days I might be banned too. Ouch!

Bert is the administrator. That's his job. He's been selected for his enormous contributions to the board. Over 7,500 posts. That's more than the top 5 users after him, combined.

He wasn't banned for disagreeing. Have you seen never ending debate on P2P vs Server? People disagree all the time, but do so in a respectful manner. Disruptive behavior is often a reason for dismissal in any online forum. You said it yourself: "He did not show certain respect, well, may be he is an @##hole." Making posts that degrade, insult, or belittle other users just ruins the quality of the community. That is sufficient reason for a temporary ban. Continued behavior results in a permanent ban.

This is for the most part a user forum with very little input from the company itself.

I agree with Bert, Sandeep and others. The administrator is our proxy to assure the continued function of the board as a whole. Voicing firmly held but unpopular beliefs has never resulted in sanctions by an administrator. Being rude and monopolizing the board has and should be.

1. This seems completely contradictory to your other posts. He was certainly abusive.

2. You can post 57 times any time you wish as long as the majority of them aren't abusive.

3. How do you know we lost a customer? You do not have to be a member of the board to use AC.

4. This is the first person I have banned since being the admin for over five years with the exception of obvious spammers like users selling shoes from China.

5. I emailed JB three times with this thread and other posts of Andrechuk notifying him I was going to ban him for a major disruption of the board.

6. Andrechuk was registered as a user twice, a direct violation of the rules of the ACUB. All three of Andrechuk's emails in his profile are blacklisted for spam (although this can be common if you use Dymanic IPs from a business address. The three IP addresses he uses originate from Monroe, Michigan; Bishop, California; and Los Angeles, California. Not sure what that means.

7. Any member banned or not can go to this Amazing Chats site and find the address, telephone number and two email addresses along with the online chat and communication directly through the website.

8. Any user can Google: bert amazing charts user board email, and the second hit will give you my email address. Andrechuk could have at any time emailed me to discuss the lifting of the ban if he decided to be a productive member of the board.

9. I PM'd him twice asking him what his agenda was and warning him about his posts.

10. There are hundreds of settings in the control panel. Different mods have different permissions. An admin is allowed to ban someone. Jon is a super admin. If he did not want me to have to ability to ban someone, he could easily take that away.

11. Finally, it is not the number of posts, it is the fact that I am on the board nearly every day. Jon chose me to be admin so that I could oversee it as he has other things to do besides dealing with unruly users such as work on a program. He has made it clear to me that he trusts my oversight of the board including the ability to ban users who clearly do not exemplify what AC is all about.

I am having a difficult time following your contradictions. If you are not much interested in discussing this topic, then why did you post? And, then why post here? Also, please research better before making comments. Can you show me where I said "57 times in two days?" I do believe that was a sarcastic remark. We do tolerate those here.

Can you show me where I said "57 times in two days?"

Not you. Ryanjo.
I see you almost did background check on him. Why so personal? What did he do to you? Btw, he says in one of his posts that he is doing trial on AC. I certainly do not know if he actually bought AC or not and frankly, it is not my business. It is possible that AC lost a "paying customer". I did not find him abusive. Brash, sarcastic maybe. It is not my place to judge. Like I said, he might be an &##hole, so what? Abuse is a serious word. Who is the victim here? Dude even apologized in one of his posts. I guess not enough. What is his crime? You think it's silly, stupid, waste of time, etc? Don't read, move on to the next topic. Why did I post? In response to your actions, why else?

I think you don't get what we are trying to say. Being an "&##hole" is grounds for a removal. We have absolutely no problem with people voicing their opinions. But we ask that they do so in a respectful manner. We've argued P2P vs Server to hell and back while maintaining a basic level of civility and mutual respect.

Furthermore, I don't know if you're a member of any other forums. Disrespecting moderators and administrators is typically against forum conduct. Bert was not out of line. 15 other users found his posts to be disruptive and disrespectful.

You say it should be up to the Admin, the Admin decided to ban him. I mean it really is saying something if the users and the administrator agree that a user needs to be banned.

I see you might be related in your work to statistics? We have more than 3000 members here. How many &##holes here? Statistically? Is there anybody who is behind on child support? Maybe? Just curious. Can you practice a medicine and be an &##hole? You don't need to answer that one. 15 people agreed to ban this guy and you think this is good justification? At least Bert tried to contact him few times, apparently to no avail. I do get what you are trying to say. And I wholeheartedly disagree that being &##hole is grounds for banning. This is not your private forum, not your backyard, not your living room. He did not curse, there was not any hate speech, no name calling, nothing of that kind. He pushed some egos around, and that is why he was banned. All right, got pts to see.

Let me drop some statistics for you then. Sure we have 3000 members, but how many are really active? There's less than 30 people who post regularly. Most of the members ask their one question and leave after it's resolved.


I'm aware this is not my private forum. It's a community forum and the community has voted him out. You join of your own accord and are expected to follow the rules. Like I said even though there are 3000+ members, only about 20-30 post regularly. Not even one of them defended AndreChuk's actions. You seem to be the only one outraged.

A moderator and an admin both agreed the ban was justified.

Easyrider,

Look. You are voicing an opinion that is counter to an opinion many of us hold. You are being vocal, clear, and appropriate. Some of us disagree with you strongly. NO ONE is suggesting banning you or making you hold your opinions to yourself. You are using this forum as it is designed to be used. You do not need to defend someone who has gone "over the edge" to assure that this board remains a place where unpopular opinions are tolerated. Please trust me on this. I often represent the Lunatic Fringe on issues. I post a lot. Sometimes I am welcomed, sometimes merely tolerated. I never feel threatened. Reasonable minds will differ. Unreasonable minds, beyond a certain threshold, need to find another venue.

Just so that EasyRider doesn't feel completely alone, I was also surprised at the banning, and nearly wrote at the time to express that. Were some of Andrechuk's posts deleted along the way? I read what was available about 24 hours later and didn't see anything that I thought justified the ban. In fact, I did see some posts that seemed to bait him, such as Bert's correction of his grammar. It seems to me that the best way to calm someone who is becoming mildly unruly is to ignore bad behavior until it is extinguished, rather than continually responding in what might appear to be an attempt to have the last word. I know I'm not a regular poster (I try to be helpful when I can, but am no IT expert), but I have become a regular reader over the past few months and I found the ban more disturbing than the posts that led up to it.

Mildly unruly? I find it interesting that no one came to his defense at the time it was happening. It was anything but mild. From the moment he came on the board, nearly EVERY comment he made was belligerent, obnoxious and anything but positive. He made no effort to engage in any friendly conversation with anyone.

So, let me understand. While I am not saying I handled it perfectly, are you suggesting that the best way to calm someone "is to ignore bad behavior until it is extinguished?" That is the best way to treat two-year-old tantrums not the posts of an adult.

The difference here is while you found the banning more disturbing than the posts that led up to it, I found the posts more disturbing than a ban. Therefore, I banned him. If he came on again, which he could, I would welcome him. I would also let him know if he started his antics again, that he would be banned again if they continued.

I'd like to back up what Bert is saying.

I also have some past experience moderating tech self-help boards. Ignoring posters who either excessively go off topic or are clearly argumentative (i.e., "flaming") just destroys any value to posting a question or answer. A certain number of flamers never go away, and the genuine posters rapidly get frustrated -- after all, why should they avoid posting to see if the annoyances will stop? We all know there are clear areas where unbridled "free speech" is undesirable. There are plenty of social networking sites where flamers can vent.

I agree with Bert - his posts were difficult to follow and seemed that he just picked one to argue. Banning was appropriate - let him come back and see if he can get along.

I did not log in yesterday and missed this posting.

It is the purpose of the moderator to make sure that the flow continues smoothly and is not offensive. Interestingly, the few day that Andrechuk went on his massive posting I was not on the board, but looked back and it seemed he was spiteful and disrespectful.

Some of his comments could have been taken more mildly if he had a history on the board. I will occasionally make a remark out of context that could appear mean, but I know every one and they realize that there is no meanness in the context. He had no such history but came out swinging.


Actually it is a private forum, for and by the Users of Amazing Charts.

Bert is the Moderator and has both the right and responsibility to ban someone he finds offensive. He is the ultimate judge. As much time as he spends here, it might as well be his living room.

In my over 7+ years on this board, Bert has never banned someone for the content of his speech. He felt it was inappropriate, he asked behind the scenes for second opinions, researched further and found inconsistencies in his background. It was not just that his speech was derogatory his motives begged to be questioned. Also, I will tell you that I have never seen anyone post 57 times in 2 days.

Some people might not get this, but this board is different, and we play nice. While you can disagree, ultimately you must accept the decision of the leader because it is final.

People who are vitriolic in their discussion are likely to be the same way with support. I think AC is better off if we did lean him toward not purchasing the program. I do know that Jon modified the EULA some time ago to give him the ability to remove persons who were too troublesome. If he was a tester and he changed his mind I say good riddance.

While you can and obviously do disagree with the majority opinion, that is OK. But it remains a fact of life. And I for one am not sorry, nor apparently, are any of the more active posters. In any democracy you will find some discontent. If this is as much of a reason to complain, we must be doing pretty well.

I am a relative newbie to the forum, but my observation of the banning of Andrechuck is that he banned himself. Bert had no choice but to do what was necessary for the good of the forum. We live in a society where free speech is emulated, but this forum has, I think, what is missing in most medical communities, collegial respect and a willingness to help each other survive the changing face of medicine. I suspect if each of us look at our local medical communities, we can all think of examples of one multispecialty group or hospital owned group trying to out wit and contract with the private payers to run the other one to the ground. I am sick of the antics of doctors beating up on other doctors, when in my opinion it is not necessary but self induced most of the time.
It is a sad day when something like this happens, but if I were the administrator (Bert), I would rather p!ss off Andrechuck than be p!ssed off at myself for not doing anything about it.

Moderator not administrator-- correction of above.

You were right the first time. Not bragging, but it is the administrator who is a mod. That is why the key in Who's Online shows Admin in red. Just keeping an eye on you jimmie. Thanks for the comment.

I'm one of the "silent majority" who gains a great deal of insight from Bert and the other regulars and fully support his action.

I searched for the offending string and could not find it. I did find a couple of obnoxious comments but I suppose that is nothing new. I have "lurked" and actively participated in this forum for a few years now and I have seen sarcasm, contradiction, disagreement, self deprecation, laughter, tears, humor, inappropriateness (always followed by apology)but always a sense of respect for others. Bert has been involved in or observed all of the above. I have never seen him ban anyone. I wish I could read the offending string but I have the utmost faith in Bert's judgement in this matter. If he banned the guy I am sure he deserved it and good riddance. Bert, please note that I said I have the utmost faith in your judgement in THIS matter. Please don't assume that I therefore have the utmost faith in your judgement in ALL matters. LOL.

Could you please post here the examples of his "antics"? You guys keep using words "abuse", "disturbing", "belligerent", "obnoxious", "degrading", "insulting" etc. Some of these words have legal consequences,others - just matter of opinions. I did not follow this string in question, I don't know much about computers anyway. I put his name in search box and read his comments. None of what I saw could justify his banning. If it was matter of the law and he wanted to pursue it, you guys would run with your tale behind your legs. Unless.. there is something which was deleted by him, or by Bert? Since this discussion just keeps going, I would like to see if there is something else to see.

Easyrider, I will let others offer the links. Let me point out that this board is a private party. No one has a "right" to be here. We are invited guests, and the moderator is the host. It took me a bit to realize that this board was not an official part of AC as a product, but rather an independent entity. If the moderator does not like our behavior, the offending party may be invited to leave at any time. There is no legal recourse to being sent home to learn manners.