Jump to content

Get better banning


OMGAKITTY

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 74
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  'Rinne said:
  Quote
  Quote

The whole point of a ban is to deny you access to communication on the forum. Giving you access to your PM's would defeat the purpose of a ban.

 

Mods are far from perfect' date=' and can often give out bans for bad or just plain stupid reasons. I reserve the right to be able to argue my case.

[/quote']

 

It's called e-mail. ;D

 

No support.

 

The hell I want you guys to know my email.

 

  Quote

Actually I don't support anymore. The ppl deserve what they deserve.

@Brushfire: Is that avatar by any chance have Sirius Black?

 

Yes, because mods have never made stupid bans before.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The flaw here is that if the user is banned for a good reason and starts causing PM mischief, there would have to be an option to disable the ability to send PMs. And if there was an option to disable PMs, Mods would all too often use that when banning someone. No one would be able to argue their case anyways.

 

Seems like the problem is the Mods themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  'Glass said:

You wouldn't know what it was like to be banned so don't go saying it would defeat the purpose!

 

I know the purpose of banning people' date=' and allowing PMs while banned would defeat that purpose.

 

  Quote

Yes, because mods have never made stupid bans before.

  Quote

Seems like the problem is the Mods themselves.

 

And of course, regular members are all shining beacons of perfection and holiness that never make mistakes and always follow the rules. The Mods, on the other, are always wrong no matter what has happened, because they have the authority and authority is always bad because it is bad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  'Brushfire said:

I tried to get you unbanned.

 

Know what happened? Oh yeah' date=' I was banned. Not happening again bro- it was hard enough to get myself out of my ban (took 4 Moderators and a double account for an apology), too much drama for me.

[/quote']

 

less hostility please. :3

 

  'Skuldur said:

Not when it's someone Hunter doesn't like' date=' then it's 50%-Ban.

[/quote']

 

Its default. :/ Besides, I dont like anyone anymore.

 

  'Brushfire said:
  Quote

Not when it's someone Hunter doesn't like' date=' then it's 50%-Ban.

[/quote']

 

Or in my case, a 70% warn for telling kitty princess that she's a stupid little suck-up (and even though Umbra doesn't even believe it's a warning apparently that stills warrants 30% in Icy's view). Yeah, and I didn't even mention the month ban for posting a thread with a quote that Hunter said on MSN. Even though that was cleared up, the fact that nothing is being done about it and people are still getting ridiculous warnings/bans annoys me. SAVE_US_TSL!

 

Really? I thought you were over this.

 

  'Brushfire said:
  Quote
  Quote
  Quote

Not when it's someone Hunter doesn't like' date=' then it's 50%-Ban.

[/quote']

 

Or in my case, a 70% warn for telling kitty princess that she's a stupid little suck-up (and even though Umbra doesn't even believe it's a warning apparently that stills warrants 30% in Icy's view). Yeah, and I didn't even mention the month ban for posting a thread with a quote that Hunter said on MSN. Even though that was cleared up, the fact that nothing is being done about it and people are still getting ridiculous warnings/bans annoys me. SAVE_US_TSL!

 

Isn't that just flamming, why 70% I would expect that for something a lot worse.

 

Why do two mods need to warn you?

 

That just seems a lot more mod abuse then I was expecting.

 

Why was it 70%? Oh right, because Hunter says he'd rather be a "harsh Mod then a soft one". In other words even glassberry's Guidelines were better.

 

Icy revoked my 70% warning after I spoke to him about it, and replaced it with a 30% one.

 

No, the only Mod 'abuse' right now is really coming from Hunter. Sorry man, but you know it's true. Even that Super Mod I know agrees (I know all of them, now you have to guess ;D). Or Bloodrun, before he was demoted- but that's a different story.

 

I wasn't the one who said to ban you for a month.

 

  'Fenrir said:

Support.

 

I'm going to get banned one of these days by Hunter for a stupid reason' date=' might as well have some backup.

[/quote']

 

You mean like spamming? yeah, thats a really stupid reason isn't it?

 

  'Kizzi said:

Support. However' date=' if possible, they would only be able to send messages to mods.

[/quote']

 

If this were to go through, it should only be to the moderator that banned them.

 

And I thought you guys realized this by now. I use the warning system like a good little mod once you complained about me not doing so. I'm human. I do discuss warnings and bans and if you have a strong arguement that isn't total BS, there's a good chance I'll admit to being in the wrong. It has happened.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  'Barragan Luisenbarn said:
  Quote

Yes' date=' because mods have never made stupid bans before.

[/quote']

  'Corporal Atlas said:

Seems like the problem is the Mods themselves.

 

And of course' date=' regular members are all shining beacons of perfection and holiness that never make mistakes and always follow the rules. The Mods, on the other, are always wrong no matter what has happened, because they have the authority and authority is always bad because it is bad.

[/quote']

Members aren't given many responsibilities and are the lowest rank a member can be, therefore it's fine if they aren't all perfect. Mods are elected positions and as such should be expected to be competent at the job they're doing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  'Corporal Atlas said:
  Quote
  Quote

Yes' date=' because mods have never made stupid bans before.

[/quote']

  'Corporal Atlas said:

Seems like the problem is the Mods themselves.

 

And of course' date=' regular members are all shining beacons of perfection and holiness that never make mistakes and always follow the rules. The Mods, on the other, are always wrong no matter what has happened, because they have the authority and authority is always bad because it is bad.

[/quote']

Members aren't given many responsibilities and are the lowest rank a member can be, therefore it's fine if they aren't all perfect.

 

That was not what I meant - the members are not always right, just because they're members. Of course you wouldn't like it if you were banned, and think you shouldn't have been. (I've been in that position once, a two-week ban due to spamming, and I didn't think I'd done anything wrong. But I waited it out, spent some time on the site's IRC instead.) Members are not always right, and Mods aren't always right either.

 

And Members are also expected to be competent at what they're doing; if they aren't, they're banned. "Banned" is the lowest rank a member can have, by the way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  'Barragan Luisenbarn said:
  Quote
  Quote
  Quote

Yes' date=' because mods have never made stupid bans before.

[/quote']

  'Corporal Atlas said:

Seems like the problem is the Mods themselves.

 

And of course' date=' regular members are all shining beacons of perfection and holiness that never make mistakes and always follow the rules. The Mods, on the other, are always wrong no matter what has happened, because they have the authority and authority is always bad because it is bad.

[/quote']

Members aren't given many responsibilities and are the lowest rank a member can be, therefore it's fine if they aren't all perfect.

 

That was not what I meant - the members are not always right, just because they're members. Of course you wouldn't like it if you were banned, and think you shouldn't have been. (I've been in that position once, a two-week ban due to spamming, and I didn't think I'd done anything wrong. But I waited it out, spent some time on the site's IRC instead.) Members are not always right, and Mods aren't always right either.

 

And Members are also expected to be competent at what they're doing; if they aren't, they're banned. "Banned" is the lowest rank a member can have, by the way.

But I have yet to be banned and still notice how terribly some moderators are handing out warnings. How efficiently they mark your wrongdoings just depends on how much they like you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  'OMGAKITTY said:
  Quote

The whole point of a ban is to deny you access to communication on the forum. Giving you access to your PM's would defeat the purpose of a ban.

 

Mods are far from perfect' date=' and can often give out bans for bad or just plain stupid reasons. I reserve the right to be able to argue my case.

[/quote']

 

Judges are not perfect and they do quite often make a judgement that is seemingly un-benifitial to the defendant. The way they settle this in court is simple. The defendant is put in jail or prison, he or she has the chance to talk to his or her lawyer and the lawyer will basically act as a messenger. The easiest and simplest way to solve that problem in this case, was solved on the release of the version of this software. Email/IM'ing accounts listed every so kindly on each members page.

You pick the Moderator-Lawyer- you want to talk to. Talk it over with them, and things are settled through negotiation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  'Muluck said:
  Quote
  Quote

The whole point of a ban is to deny you access to communication on the forum. Giving you access to your PM's would defeat the purpose of a ban.

 

Mods are far from perfect' date=' and can often give out bans for bad or just plain stupid reasons. I reserve the right to be able to argue my case.

[/quote']

 

Judges are not perfect and they do quite often make a judgement that is seemingly un-benifitial to the defendant. The way they settle this in court is simple. The defendant is put in jail or prison, he or she has the chance to talk to his or her lawyer and the lawyer will basically act as a messenger. The easiest and simplest way to solve that problem in this case, was solved on the release of the version of this software. Email/IM'ing accounts listed every so kindly on each members page.

You pick the Moderator-Lawyer- you want to talk to. Talk it over with them, and things are settled through negotiation.

 

Unless email and/or IM is not filled in/set on private. Or you don't have an IM-ing system (considering the average age group of this site, its entirely possible some members do not have access to IM features, ie, their parents don't want them chatting up strangers over IM). And that's the whole reason I want PM's activated. So members can argue their case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  'OMGAKITTY said:
  Quote
  Quote
  Quote

The whole point of a ban is to deny you access to communication on the forum. Giving you access to your PM's would defeat the purpose of a ban.

 

Mods are far from perfect' date=' and can often give out bans for bad or just plain stupid reasons. I reserve the right to be able to argue my case.

[/quote']

 

Judges are not perfect and they do quite often make a judgement that is seemingly un-benifitial to the defendant. The way they settle this in court is simple. The defendant is put in jail or prison, he or she has the chance to talk to his or her lawyer and the lawyer will basically act as a messenger. The easiest and simplest way to solve that problem in this case, was solved on the release of the version of this software. Email/IM'ing accounts listed every so kindly on each members page.

You pick the Moderator-Lawyer- you want to talk to. Talk it over with them, and things are settled through negotiation.

 

Unless email and/or IM is not filled in/set on private. Or you don't have an IM-ing system (considering the average age group of this site, its entirely possible some members do not have access to IM features, ie, their parents don't want them chatting up strangers over IM). And that's the whole reason I want PM's activated. So members can argue their case.

 

Twitter, Myspace, Meebo, Facebook, Myyearbook. I have looked on the Forum Team page and there is more then one Moderator with information to contact them.

 

At this point in time, it is not a matter of allowing the PM's to be accessed during a ban, but actually being to do it. There is no option to let someone view PM's during a ban. And that's something you cannot change unless you are willing to edited this forum software.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  'Corporal Atlas said:

But I have yet to be banned and still notice how terribly some moderators are handing out warnings. How efficiently they mark your wrongdoings just depends on how much they like you.

 

Give some concrete examples please. I looked through your warning history for example but it all makes sense to me. "Lol" and "reported" is always spam' date=' even if everyone likes you.:/

 

 

  Quote

Severity of the spam or flaming, and if they did it multiple times would have been a better explanation, Raven. -.-'

=P

 

  'Opalmoon said:
  Quote

Even that Super Mod I know agrees (I know all of them' date=' now you have to guess ;D).

[/quote']

 

Is it Barackgan Luisaban or Browa?

 

It's both, and Icy. xD

 

Your choice of words hits the nail on the spot master.:3

 

 

And sir above me is right, there are many ways to contact the mods, most take 2 minutes to register. If you made an account here it's not that hard to sign up somewhere else on an IM or whatever. ._.

Or don't get banned at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  Quote

Or don't get banned at all.

 

What about the people that get banned for a month for literally no reason? -.-"

I just think PM'ing while banned should be considered a favourable option, and it makes much sense to me. =\

 

EDIT: In all honesty, there's no downsides to this. Banned members who feel they've been banned unjustly get to debate their cases with the Mod who banned them/other Mods, and even if they do PM other members: Super Mods can check the PM Logs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  'Brushfire said:
  Quote

Or don't get banned at all.

 

What about the people that get banned for a month for literally no reason? -.-"

I just think PM'ing while banned should be considered a favourable option' date=' and it makes much sense to me. =\

 

EDIT: In all honesty, there's no downsides to this. Banned members who feel they've been banned unjustly get to debate their cases with the Mod who banned them/other Mods, and even if they do PM other members: Super Mods can check the PM Logs.

[/quote']

 

Or the one's banned because of certain Moderators going psycho out on a war path. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  Quote
  Quote

But I have yet to be banned and still notice how terribly some moderators are handing out warnings. How efficiently they mark your wrongdoings just depends on how much they like you.

Give some concrete examples please. I looked through your warning history for example but it all makes sense to me. "Lol" and "reported" is always spam

The point I was making was that other people had bad warnings given. But if you want to say those are legitimate…

 

Always counting something like that as spam is foolish. I was stressing the irony of him telling people not to spam. Apparently forcing people to think about what I said for two seconds to realize it had an inner meaning is spam. Lol when I used it was basically a more cynical I disagree. Perhaps those are just bad rules if certain key words are always considered spam. :S

 

  Quote

everyone likes you.:/

TY <3

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...