Okay, where to start with this one? First and foremost, regardless of what you think, my apologies and regret as a moderator to letting this situation get to this level of chaos.
As for the chatlogs, I should give my stance on these, since, well, they're the important precursor to this thread. I will say though, that moderators can unban users at will with a given command, that I forgot about until last night, hattip to CU.
On the first ban, it was unfortunate element of circumstance on Grade_A23's end of matters. Recently, we have had a LOT of members coming in, claiming to be 'new', but wind being someone who was banned, for just cause, finding a backdoor into the chat. These members mysteriously know a ton about the site's inner workings, nicknames, etc. I would not at all say that it is an abuse of power, if an accidental banning, in lieu of circumstances. Given the frequency of this happening of late, suspicion levels are always high. I do apologize on behalf of the staff for a misunderstanding of your identity. However, as JJ pointed out, Grade's not squeaky clean in all this either, having gone to not only Twitter, but a personal, work account of Torgo. There were alternate paths, and that one was likely the least classy of them.
Instead, PM Torgo, PM me, PM somebody. I'm usually online if you've got an issue with something with respect to the chat (heck, forums too), be it a banning, something someone said to you, etc. I'll hear out your problem, and try to work out a solution, aside from blatant trolling, in which case I'll get an admin involved. If your status is in limbo, as in confirming if you are another member or not, my response is likely to be delayed until either a moderation team/trusted panel comes to a consensus, or I as an individual reach a verdict. Yesterday, we had the mod team, and it was pretty clear across the board you were someone else. If nothing else, that teaches you were are human as well and make mistakes. The actions taken yesterday truly were an imperfect story and should not be held against anybody, from those banned, doing the banning, etc., nor should it be seen as representative of moderation efforts as a whole, from any particular user with ban abilities in chat. In that sense, I agree with JustBecause, wholeheartedly.
As for Schfifty's ban, this gets a bit more complicated. Nobody agrees this should have been a permanent ban, and in fact, when it was delivered, it was intended to be a one show/rest of show ban. I can understand some of the reactions you may have to this action; however, it is slightly misguided. Furthermore, the reasons that he was banned were not solely based upon the quoted section of 2000's transcript. To claim otherwise, not that anyone has, would be disingenuous. Guint and I were discussing member behavior as well, and came to the conclusion, for this show, Schfifty was violating the one unwritten rule of message boards everywhere: Don't suck. No, not you as an individual, but in this case, individual contributions to the chat were deemed not to be of chat standard.
As we enter a new era of Golden-Road, one where I'd like to get Mike and Drew involved (and where I have some third-party connects to the former) quality and maturity will have to be emphasized. However, the other matter was such that Schfifty appeared, notice I did not say was, to be undermining Torgo's authority to ban this user. Neither of these actions is ban worth on its on. Combined together, however, and it is a separate story.
While I respect people's opinion's about disagreeing why certain people should not have been banned, and need to be unbanned, that is rather uncouth of the members of this board. It stands highly of backseat moderation, and I would like to suggest this not take place on a public level. To call individuals false moderators, and claim abuses of powers, are matters that you should direct to me, CU, or Steve. It has no business out in the open like this. I've had many times when I've had issues with moderators and those in authority before, but this approach rarely works--for those that know me closely, you might know a good example of what I mean. If other members had issues, this likely should have been directed to me through private message. The only one I cannot give comment about, to an adequate degree, is PriceBusterXL's. This was Adam's decision, and I'll leave him to explain that.
Let's let this one go. Most members concerned about banning, besides PriceBuster, for the aforementioned reason, should be unbanned. However, Grade_A23, while not still absolutely still banned, will be subject to review for a different reason; not as a repeat user, which is my mistake, but for personal Twitter harassment, with irrefutable evidence. Once a decision is made, later tonight, to have the ban rescinded or not, this user will be given a personal message about his future in the chat.
Let's move on, unless you want to discuss my post, and the site's actions going forward a bit, as it concerns show connections, overall quality, and so forth. The part of matters, in fairness, is previously undiscussed, on a broader scale, and warrants further messages.
As for how banning goes in chat: You click on the user's username, on the righthand side of chat. From there, you get a drop down box, that gives options of Ban/PM/Ignore/etc. If you click ban, you get the option of banning by room, the chat itself (for chats with multiple rooms), or by IP. Above that is a message where you state your ban reason. Then you click ban, on the bottom middle part of such a screen, almost as if sending a private messaging to someone, and the user is banned.
PM me if you want to go into chat so I can make an image by image description of how this works, for our visual learners. I won't actually ban you, but I need another member to demonstrate the action steps, get the screenshots, upload, and edit them into this post.
