New Approach to Banning?

[Gobalopper]

Percent active would be based on those who have been logged in for the last week and have posted say 25 posts. That would stop people from just creating fake accounts to get someones votes up. Going by that approach there would be 116 eligible members.

[IxianMace]

These kind of issues are best dealt with by people that can view things from an objective point of view, hopefully with as little bias as possible from anything, even their feelings towards another person, and that are mature.

If you keep any eye out for yourself (with or without help from the moderators) on the apparent disruptive people on your message board, then you should be able to draw your own conclusions as to whether or not any action is necessary, as far as banning is concerned. Of course, it may not always be practical to watch every disruptive person, but I'm quite uncomfortable with a system that's based on popularity. With enough active moderators patrolling the boards, this shouldn't really be in issue.

So long as a person isn't breaking any forum rules that have already been outlined, then there should be no reason to ban them, should there? You can't ban someone just because you don't like them, right?

A person that says things that anger the majority of people on a message board deserves to be ignored (perhaps the ignore feature can be made to make a member 'disappear' like it used to?) If people choose to keep getting involved in an argument with the person that is annoying them, and can't come to a civilized agreement or conclusion, then they are also to blame. Most people will probably find it quite difficult to keep on arguing with themselves. ;)

Banning someone just because they are posting things that are annoying other people but are staying within the forum rules is just wrong IMHO. If a person is being deliberately harassed, then that's a different case, but most of the time people can choose whether or not they want to get involved in something that has the potential to get ugly.

Having said that, I'm totally against this proposal.

[alchemi2]

25 posts seems a bit high for a week by my standards of posting, i often visit and read topics etc without posting due to not having anything relevant,informitive or constructive to add.

Could bans be board specific rather than total site? and structure over time periods as people do change and the idea behind punishment is to reform behavior.

[Gobalopper]

It would be 25 over all time not in the last week.

As for time period of the ban that could vary but it wouldn't be permanent. The voting could also be more restricted to a select group of people as well. The biggest reason behind having a larger group make the decision is that not everyone is bothered by someone like Navaros, myself being one of them, but I am more then willing to ban him for a period of time if there is significant outcry because people feel he doesn't belong. I would much rather have everyone get along but that is obviously not possible on a board of this size.

As for the ability to ignore someone that never really works. People either find ways to read the post anyhow or just remove the person from their list every so often to see what they have posted.

[Terror]

Hmm i am for the system. I would like to have a vote in who gets out of line and who doesn't. True, the system is not all that great, but i think that it should work ok. We could at least try.

[Navaros]

that's total bullshit Gob.

i've been here and on the old Westwood boards for longer than almost 100% of the current Emp board posters.

[Nyarlathotep]

What do you mean make it a vote? you already have a vote for who gets banned in the landsrrad.

You my friend should be very quiet. Don't make tings worse for yourself by dragging on that issue. Next time I'll open a thread where I'll post an IM in which someone appologized to me. It's the last warning I'll give you.

As far as the topic goes, like Ace, I don't see a need for a vote. I don't get bother much by Nav or Lowezee for example. I do get bother by the fact that someone has Nazi sigs (Lowezee - Heil Hitler), or like Navaros comparing others to Hitler. If it would have been me, you would have gotten banned for that. Apart from that, there isn't much I can be botherd with.

[Anathema]

I think it's a bad idea, and I trust Gob enough with judging wether or not a ban is necessary. Plus, like some people mentioned, annoyance is not a reason for a ban except in case of spam.

[Dante]

On the other hand, it would make judging how hated some people are a lot easier. And Gob's inbox might just stop recieving requests to get rid of people.

I like the idea, not least because it might finally shut certain people up on the subject of corrupt and evil autocratic moderators...

And of course final decision rests with Gob. No problems there. It's political almost, like a parliment constructed to aid a monarch in decision-making (and remove some of the blame for disputed decisions

[shygirl4]

I think it

[Terror]

hmm, i actually agree with Dust scout. I can see your fear shygirl, but getting 75% of the votes against you is realy high. I am 100% sure that you must do something very wrong when 75% votes you out. And if 75% of the forum doesn't like you. I don't think that person adds to the atmoshpere of the forum either.

[Andrew]

Percent active would be based on those who have been logged in for the last week and have posted say 25 posts. That would stop people from just creating fake accounts to get someones votes up. Going by that approach there would be 116 eligible members.

When you say logged in do you mean manually logging in or just being online. Some people probably havn't cleared thier cookies in a while and do not appear to have logged in the past week but are active members.

Hurray for Democracy!

[exatreide]

All it would turn into would be a popularity contest, hell look at the fan fic section, me aend dusty lost the fan fiction popularity contest and now fan fic has one active thread in it, even though cleary i had more experience and would have more time since i fixed my computer(and have been here since) and dusty was just as good as ghost but noooo he lost the popularity contest and now fan fic....look for yourself one thread active? two maybe?

Popularity contests are not the way to go. Have gob do it he has done it in the past and never done wrongly...mostly...

[Seal89999]

hmm, i actually agree with Dust scout. I can see your fear shygirl, but getting 75% of the votes against you is realy high. I am 100% sure that you must do something very wrong when 75% votes you out. And if 75% of the forum doesn't like you. I don't think that person adds to the atmoshpere of the forum either.

I agree with Rene,

75% is quite alot and if that many people dont like the person, that dosent do much for anybody but cause trouble and conflict. If that many people dont feel the person belongs than there is a good chance that the members of the community will not value posts/comments/attendance of that person.

[GUNWOUNDS]

I agree with Rene,

75% is quite alot and if that many people dont like the person, that dosent do much for anybody but cause trouble and conflict. If that many people dont feel the person belongs than there is a good chance that the members of the community will not value posts/comments/attendance of that person.

75% is quite alot .. but many people can be petty.

[exatreide]

You my friend should be very quiet. Don't make tings worse for yourself by dragging on that issue. Next time I'll open a thread where I'll post an IM in which someone appologized to me. It's the last warning I'll give you.

As far as the topic goes, like Ace, I don't see a need for a vote. I don't get bother much by Nav or Lowezee for example. I do get bother by the fact that someone has Nazi sigs (Lowezee - Heil Hitler), or like Navaros comparing others to Hitler. If it would have been me, you would have gotten banned for that. Apart from that, there isn't much I can be botherd with.

Do not threaten me, i dont care if your one of gobs lapdogs it still does not give you the right ot threatnen me.I am Tony Montana and i did nothing wrong.I dont know what you may have on Exatreides, that dosnt matter for he is dead. I am Tony Montana

Actully, Gob i think this is harrasment he is threatning me and trying to blackmail me, I think we should call a vote, becouse surely gob does not suport threatning and blackmail.

Surely that is somewhat worse then navarous, He is actully threatning me here, I say we ban him or he should atleast apologize to me.

[EWS]

I propose that Nav lists everything he has done to benefit this site in great detail like he says he can.

[TMA_1]

dont like the idea, and nyar dont pick on ex for accidentally blurting out something like that, whether it is true or not. plus doing that makes landsraad look even worse.lol

[GUNWOUNDS]

doing that makes landsraad look even worse.

i thought we all came to an agreement a looooong time ago that most people outside the lansraad dont really care about being in it.... and that the lansraad themselves said it is no big deal being a member.

so the lansraad cannot be made to "look worse" if people dont care about it or hold it in high esteem to begin with.

[exatreide]

Well It really dosnt matter why he said it, the fact is he said it.

Their is nothing in the rules about spreading rumors and effectivly thats what I did in the first page. Their is nothing in the rules about that.

However the rules are very against harrasment and blackmailing and that is what Doc tried to do to me.

The fact that he was defending the landsrrad or the fact that he was in the landsrrad still give him no right to do this. Or are the landsrrad a exception to the rules?

I would atleast like a explanation and a apology.

[Timenn]

Eh, no problem that you still have switched from account name, but that still leaves you with the reputation of Exatreides. In a wat it can be compared that banned members aren't allowed to start a new account, and start with a clean record.

But we shouldn't post about details, and who should be the first to have such a poll. But it is about what you think of the idea. So back on topic.

[Warskum]

I think that if 75% is against some1 then that person should be banned cuz apparantly something is wrong with that person, the active posters visit these boards everyday and its becuz of them that the community is still standing so i think they should have the right to have a voice about who to be banned.

Off-topic:

Shygirl every1 turned against you in edric's thread becuz u were flaming ppl and you called every1 an idiot.

[shygirl4]

Warskum

maybe you should re-read the topic , then come back and appolagise for getting it wrong...(but i doubt you will)

shy  ::)

[alchemi2]

IMO you need to give more detail Gob.

How would a proposal come about? based on what! Would the individual concerned be allowed to answer the charges.

How would you conduct the poll?

Answer these points and perhaps it will ally some fears!

[Inoculator9]

As stated previously, it would not simply be popularity contests because Gob would have to approve people put up for ban votes. If there is no tangible rules violation, sensibly that person would not be brought up unless there are extrenuating circumstances.