 |
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Laogeodritt
Joined: 13 Aug 2004
Posts: 15102
Location: Let me play not Man's music, but the music of Nature herself!
|
 Posted: Thu Jun 19, 2008 9:54 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Quote: | | And generally speaking, I don't really see the advantage of destroying the only power we really have to get rid of problematic members |
Doing a two-tier temp ban system (say, one week, then six months, and then absolutely permanent without appeal) would add a slight margin of upkeep but would not entirely "destroy the only power" you have to get rid of problematic members. [/devil's advocate]
| General Discussion wrote: | | @Ten Avalance: I still consider posting "this band sucks" an insult more than an opinion. "I don't like this band because of this, this, and this," would be fine, but outright bashing shouldn't be. If telling someone off for slamming a band is bad, so is insulting a band non-constructively. |
I'm sorry to do this while you're still temp banned (I think), but I think it necessary to point out the obvious double standard here:
When arguing your "opinion", some of us often call you out for not backing it up with a logical argument nor facts. You have, quite often, responded to this by stating that for an opinion to be valid does not require justification whatsoever. And now you're saying that stating one's dislike for a band forcefully without giving justification doesn't constitute a valid opinion.
Your initial thesis may not be stated with intent of insult, but it is nonetheless forcefully stated and without justification, and your later replies stubbornly contradict an opposing view (without refuting them). The situations are similar enough to liken them in the way I have here: in both cases one is stating an opinion simply that opposes other opinions, and does not justify or argument the opinion, either initially or when addressed or contradicted in a later reply.
_________________
Cogito ergo sum. | Writers' Guild
Last edited by Laogeodritt on Sat Jun 21, 2008 8:50 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Father Mudkip
Joined: 04 Jun 2008
Posts: 640
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 21, 2008 8:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I dunno, the present system seems pretty fair.
Before I left my old forum, they had a Strike system - three strikes and you're out, no appeals, nothing. Thing was, any Mod could put a Strike on someone for any old thing, because the rules were very general. So it was basically anybody that pissed off (or argued with) the Mods got banned, and the kiss-ups, if they ever got caught in a flame war for example, were spared. I found that really unfair, and kinda dumb, personally.
It's a lot better, here, though. All of the rules are set out nice and straight, and the twenty-point, thirty-point system is nice. I appreciate the fact that users can lose their points, too, over time. It's a lot more rule-based, and less personal here.
| Quote: | | Doing a two-tier temp ban system (say, one week, then six months, and then absolutely permanent without appeal) would add a slight margin of upkeep but would not entirely "destroy the only power" you have to get rid of problematic members. |
Eh, if they even want to come back after six months, you know?
Laogeodritt's second point is also fair, though I don't know General Discussion very well, I would consider that flamebait as well. >.> |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Laogeodritt
Joined: 13 Aug 2004
Posts: 15102
Location: Let me play not Man's music, but the music of Nature herself!
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 21, 2008 8:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Before I left my old forum, they had a Strike system - three strikes and you're out, no appeals, nothing. |
This was our former system. Unlike what you described, though, the moderators here were very lenient, and given the small number that three strikes were many, many minor infractions were overlooked because (I presume) the moderators decided it did not warrant 33% closer to a ban. Given this subjectiveness, there was occasionally tension between the moderators and certain groups of members.
Certain members whom some believed should have been banned long ago survived for months before finally seeing their posting privileges revoked.
| Quote: | | Eh, if they even want to come back after six months, you know? |
We're already ruling out casual spammers and trolls. I know a few old and liked members (by at least a handful of other members) would have liked to return after a while, and the fact that some of them have created alts and remained well-behaved to a point shows that they wish to return. (Whether they can keep whatever trait caused them to be banned in check is another matter.)
Another action that could be taken is to limit members banned under certain circumstances from appealing a ban on a second-chance provision: cases like blatant and intended action (spamming in extremely high volumes or pornographic or shock images), or being banned under the "new member" clause of the rules, or where a certain number of points were accumulated from a single "unforgivable" infraction to cause a ban, etc.
By the way, I appended a statement in the second part of my post that was basically essential to understanding the context of those three paragraphs.
_________________
Cogito ergo sum. | Writers' Guild |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EEVILMURRAY
Joined: 18 Aug 2004
Posts: 12266
Location: England.
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 21, 2008 11:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Laogeodritt wrote: | | Quote: | | Eh, if they even want to come back after six months, you know? |
We're already ruling out casual spammers and trolls. I know a few old and liked members (by at least a handful of other members) would have liked to return after a while |
We want those back, even after six months?
| Laogeodritt wrote: | | the fact that some of them have created alts and remained well-behaved to a point shows that they wish to return. |
No. They act well-behaved so they don't get banned [Again] for the behaviour they were banned with in the first place. The word "act" here is crucial. We don't allow paedophiles near a school because they've acted "well-behaved" for six months.
| Laogeodritt wrote: | | (Whether they can keep whatever trait caused them to be banned in check is another matter.) |
Irrelevant. They were banned for certain behaviour, if they come back under any pretence they should be removed once again. They had their chance to "act" well-behaved and they pissed on it.
| Laogeodritt wrote: | | Another action that could be taken is to limit members banned under certain circumstances from appealing a ban on a second-chance provision: cases like blatant and intended action (spamming in extremely high volumes or pornographic or shock images) |
There really should be no appeal. The points system is there for members to build up ban worthy points complete with warnings about where they're going wrong, meaning they can better themself before they rack up more points.
| Laogeodritt wrote: | | or being banned under the "new member" clause of the rules, or where a certain number of points were accumulated from a single "unforgivable" infraction to cause a ban, etc. |
It is normally internet protocol to read the rules on a forum before registering/posting. If they do not do so and do something which so extreme it warrants banning under the new member rule, it's their fault. The "I didn't know" excuse is bollocks.
_________________
Would be the best staff member here if he wasn't such a cocky bastard.
 
The Baron - La Revolución |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Laogeodritt
Joined: 13 Aug 2004
Posts: 15102
Location: Let me play not Man's music, but the music of Nature herself!
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 22, 2008 12:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | It is normally internet protocol to read the rules on a forum before registering/posting. If they do not do so and do something which so extreme it warrants banning under the new member rule, it's their fault. The "I didn't know" excuse is bollocks. |
I love how you misinterpreted my post. Or, well, didn't quite read it right, since I did make explicit what I meant —
If we were to have an appeal to ban system, these cases would be by this suggestion exceptions to it, being cases I, personally, judge as showing sufficient intent, malice or disregard to the rules to not warrant the privilege of appealing the ban.
| Quote: | | No. They act well-behaved so they don't get banned [Again] for the behaviour they were banned with in the first place. |
Why?
The fact that they "act" can allow one to conjecture on their intent. That they want to gain trust and betray us later is a possibility (albeit the only case I can think of, aside from the unrealistic gaining admin powers and causing damage, is to spam or troll, which doesn't require that much trust in the community); however, that they would return and try not to get banned again because they actually liked some part of the community is another.
If it was just for friends on the forums, there's IM for that, and a banned member coming back to contact someone else can limit themselves to PMs and never actually appear on the forums. I don't believe to contact friends on the forums is a likely reason for a banned user to post, though it may not be entirely disqualified. As for a raid/coordinated spamming, it doesn't require someone to build trust within the community.
| Quote: | | Irrelevant. They were banned for certain behaviour, if they come back under any pretence they should be removed once again. They had their chance to "act" well-behaved and they pissed on it. |
Thanks for misinterpreting again. The statement was not an argument (hence the parentheses in that case), but a reference to how some alts eventually resumed old behaviour of heated arguments to flaming, etc.
Whether someone can change with regard to such traits, and thus whether there is any possibility that a member banned for a succession of infractions borne of rash action or quick tempers can return and not cause further incident, is not a subject I feel qualified to address.
_________________
Cogito ergo sum. | Writers' Guild |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EEVILMURRAY
Joined: 18 Aug 2004
Posts: 12266
Location: England.
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 22, 2008 12:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I don't mean to appear to be arguing with you chap. Just making some sexy points.
| Laogeodritt wrote: | | however, that they would return and try not to get banned again because they actually liked some part of the community is another. |
I agree with the other things you mentioned, but unless I'm still misinterpreting things here, I dislike this bit. If they liked some part of the community they should've thought about that before they got banned.
I'm curious though, what exceptions do you have on your mind at the moment?
_________________
Would be the best staff member here if he wasn't such a cocky bastard.
The Baron - La Revolución |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Laogeodritt
Joined: 13 Aug 2004
Posts: 15102
Location: Let me play not Man's music, but the music of Nature herself!
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 22, 2008 4:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Short tempers, or a very abrasive personality, not thinking before acting, I see these things as possibly racking up some points over time unintentionally. Of course, you might expect them to realize what'll happen once they get to the temp ban, but two or three incidents of losing one's cool could accumulate the ten needed points left. Furthermore, while a temporary ban might have an impact enough for someone to realize their predicament, for others full realization and regret may only come after a long-term ban.
Exceptions to possible appeal? Basically anything that shows clear malice or disregard for the rules, such as:
| Quote: | | cases like blatant and intended action (spamming in extremely high volumes or pornographic or shock images), or being banned under the "new member" clause of the rules, or where a certain number of points were accumulated from a single "unforgivable" infraction to cause a ban [e.g. serious threats to another user], etc. |
Obvious bot or advertising account cases also are included.
I'm not sure whether those who purposely troll, flame-bait or outright flame intentionally should fall under exception to appeal or allowed appeal... the case is different than racking up points (relatively quickly, I might add) from flaming in the heat of an argument or by taking bait.
_________________
Cogito ergo sum. | Writers' Guild |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EEVILMURRAY
Joined: 18 Aug 2004
Posts: 12266
Location: England.
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 23, 2008 12:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
I don't think someone who has a short fuse should be given special consideration compared to someone who can keep their cool more so. Like I said, they should read the rules and know what the crack is.
_________________
Would be the best staff member here if he wasn't such a cocky bastard.
The Baron - La Revolución |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Laogeodritt
Joined: 13 Aug 2004
Posts: 15102
Location: Let me play not Man's music, but the music of Nature herself!
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 23, 2008 1:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
Well, so it is, then.
Either way, regardless of whatever discussion takes place, it seems that the idea is unlikely to be considered, at least not at this point.
_________________
Cogito ergo sum. | Writers' Guild |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
