›
If you have an email ending in @hotmail.com, @live.com or @outlook.com (or any other Microsoft-related domain), please consider changing it to another email provider; Microsoft decided to instantly block the server's IP, so emails can't be sent to these addresses.
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE

I want to join Something Awful now

1…34689…60

Comments

  • ForzareForzare
    edited 2011-08-01 01:58:24
    Till shade is gone, till water is gone, into the Shadow with teeth bared, screaming defiance with the last breath, to spit in Sightblinder’s eye on the last Day.
    @Juan True.  But they had pretty much constant, at least towards the end of their stays, rule breaking.  No one is afraid to break a rule here or there to slip in a personal attack.

    Would dispensing with PM warnings and posting the warnings for all to
    see help shame people into behaving? Or is the thought of shaming people
    into proper behavior pushing it?

    Not sure.  Maybe for some posters, that would work.  Others, it might incite.
  • MillerCrossMillerCross
    You can change. You can.
    I think that it's a case-by-case basis, you know? If someone doesn't behave after getting a private warning, then you should make a public one. 
  • DYREDYRE
    edited 2011-08-01 01:58:03
    @Everest: I wouldn't really see a problem with that.

    Plus, it's something that's done on a lot of other forums, so it's definitely not unheard of.
  • MillerCrossMillerCross
    You can change. You can.
    Why not just apply STFU bans/Probations/Tempbans like most other sites? If somebody is being stupid you can ban them for an hour or until you think they cooled down, and then unban them.

    We do that. At least, we do the tempbanning thing. 

    As a question, can we stop an user from making threads?
  • NovaNova
    If you must eat a phoenix, boil it, do not roast it. This only encourages their mischievous habits.
    Give me a sec.
  • All NinesAll Nines
    edited 2011-08-01 02:01:10
    Has friends besides tanks now
    ^^ Dunno. Maybe a certain role makes one incapable of posting threads, but I don't know which one.
  • VorpyVorpy
    ☭Unstoppable Sex Goddess☭
    Well I mean if you are spamming up a thread, the mods go "stop it". If you are shitting up a thread, you get banned for an hour or how ever long the mods feel like it. If you are being an angry bastard you get banned until you calm down, or the mods think you calmed down. things like that.
  • NovaNova
    If you must eat a phoenix, boil it, do not roast it. This only encourages their mischievous habits.
    Not without stopping everyone else doing it, either.
  • ClockworkUniverseClockworkUniverse
    OOOooooOoOoOOoo, I'm a ghoOooOooOOOost!
    We could add a new role.
  • ForzareForzare
    Till shade is gone, till water is gone, into the Shadow with teeth bared, screaming defiance with the last breath, to spit in Sightblinder’s eye on the last Day.
    Kind of a Probation role?
  • All NinesAll Nines
    edited 2011-08-01 02:04:13
    Has friends besides tanks now
    ^^^^ I'd rather not have it fall to me to serve as someone's anger management counselor, though. I don't believe in going easy on someone who's too bullheaded to take a breather. The Internet is wonderful because you don't have a time limit on responding to other people.

    ^^ Oh yeah. @Unknown_Entity, we need you up in this bitch!

    ^ I like the sound of that, yeah. Although you'd think we have one already.
  • MillerCrossMillerCross
    You can change. You can.
    > Probation role

    I agree. We need something like this. Such a role, I think, would make a person unable to start threads. As it is, I think that most of the drama starts because Chagen starts a thread. The rest is mostly deterrent based. (As in, "I'll get banned if I don't pick up my shit, etc etc")
  • All NinesAll Nines
    edited 2011-08-01 02:07:08
    Has friends besides tanks now
    Should we make it a general rule to put someone with two strikes on Probation irrevocably? That might help a bit, as a deterrent.
  • ForzareForzare
    edited 2011-08-01 02:08:32
    Till shade is gone, till water is gone, into the Shadow with teeth bared, screaming defiance with the last breath, to spit in Sightblinder’s eye on the last Day.
    ^^ Yeah, most of the shitstorms Chagen caused were in threads that he made.  It wouldn't completely cut drama from problem posters, but it would be a step in the right direction.

    And every little bit helps.

    ^That seems like a really good idea.  If they've gotten two strikes... Well, when someone gets a strike, I think most people would take that as a sign to straighten up and fly right, or get out.  But when they get two strikes, they're probably not going to learn.  Might as well cut the potential for damage as much as possible.
  • All NinesAll Nines
    edited 2011-08-01 02:09:58
    Has friends besides tanks now
    @Forzare: Well, if they're not going to learn after two strikes, that's usually when mods go for the permaban. Do you think we should instead allow only one chance, starting with a monthban?

    I still think putting the people who're on thin ice on permanent probation is a good idea, though.
  • MillerCrossMillerCross
    You can change. You can.
    Should we make it a general rule to put someone with two strikes on Probation irrevocably? That might help a bit, as a deterrent.

    As a rule of thumb, I think that moderation should think of applying punishments in a case by case basis rather than having a progressive "X -> Y -> Z" deal, but that's just me.

    Anyway, I think that probation should be something given before a ban, fwiw
  • VorpyVorpy
    ☭Unstoppable Sex Goddess☭
    And don't forget, a permaban isn't like killing them forever. If they come back after a period of time (a year or so) and shown that they have improved, you can always bring them back as a probationary user, and if they aren't shitting up anymore they CAN come back.

    But if they ARE bad for the forum then they can just be sent away for good.
  • Central AvenueCentral Avenue
    As a rule of thumb, I think that moderation should think of applying punishments in a case by case basis rather than having a progressive "X -> Y -> Z" deal, but that's just me.
    I would agree with this.
  • NovaNova
    If you must eat a phoenix, boil it, do not roast it. This only encourages their mischievous habits.
    I'd prefer it, honestly, if- as a general rule, subject to change on a case-by-case basis- we go Slap a warning on them > Month-ban followed by Permanent Probation > Permaban, but that might be too harsh.
  • ForzareForzare
    edited 2011-08-01 02:13:18
    Till shade is gone, till water is gone, into the Shadow with teeth bared, screaming defiance with the last breath, to spit in Sightblinder’s eye on the last Day.
    Anyway, I think that probation should be something given before a ban, fwiw
    I agree that it should be given before a ban, but it might be an extra deterrent to be put on the probation list after two strikes.

    Do you think we should instead allow only one chance, starting with a monthban?
    I'd prefer it, honestly, if- as a general rule, subject to change on a
    case-by-case basis- we go Slap a warning on them > Month-ban followed
    by Permanent Probation > Permaban, but that might be too harsh.
    I do, but I'm not sure if that might not be over compensatingin the other direction.  If we change to this, though, I don't think users should be put on probation after their monthban.  Most people would learn from that, I think. 
  • All NinesAll Nines
    edited 2011-08-01 02:14:13
    Has friends besides tanks now
    ^^ Whereas I think three strikes is a little too lenient.
  • ForzareForzare
    Till shade is gone, till water is gone, into the Shadow with teeth bared, screaming defiance with the last breath, to spit in Sightblinder’s eye on the last Day.
    I definitely think that three strikes is too lenient.  We just need to find a stricter method that isn't too harsh at the same time.
  • MillerCrossMillerCross
    edited 2011-08-01 02:16:56
    You can change. You can.
    OK, here's how I see it.

    warning -> Probation -> Temp-ban (Time based on the circumstances) -> Perma Ban.

    ^ Two strikes.
  • NovaNova
    If you must eat a phoenix, boil it, do not roast it. This only encourages their mischievous habits.
    I think warnings may want to be entirely separate here, actually.
  • All NinesAll Nines
    edited 2011-08-01 02:19:26
    Has friends besides tanks now
    Hmm.

    PM warning --> public warning plus probation for a week --> monthban --> permanent probation/last chance before permaban --> permaban?

    There's a definite degree of arbitration, but I think it would turn out solid, and it's more detailed than what Juan provided. Plus there are only two "strikes".
  • ClockworkUniverseClockworkUniverse
    OOOooooOoOoOOoo, I'm a ghoOooOooOOOost!
    Okay, I have to go to bed now, but lemme just say that I'm glad we're talking about this and that we probably should have done so sooner.
  • ForzareForzare
    edited 2011-08-01 02:18:02
    Till shade is gone, till water is gone, into the Shadow with teeth bared, screaming defiance with the last breath, to spit in Sightblinder’s eye on the last Day.
    warning -> Probation -> Temp-ban (Time based on the circumstances) -> Perma Ban.
    This sounds good to me.

    I think warnings may want to be entirely separate here, actually.
    How so?

    Okay, I have to go to bed now, but lemme just say that I'm glad we're
    talking about this and that we probably should have done so sooner.
    Agreed.  Night, dude.
  • StormtroperStormtroper
    I think we should only put people on probation/unability to create threads only when that person's threads seem to be a problem.
  • MillerCrossMillerCross
    You can change. You can.
    I don't think that probation should just be "Unallowing to create threads", myself, but as it is, that's really the only privilege that comes to mind that can be taken away without making being such a bitch.
  • NovaNova
    If you must eat a phoenix, boil it, do not roast it. This only encourages their mischievous habits.
    How so?

    I feel that warnings should be something we're handing out irregardless of bans.

    Too many warnings should definitely be a sign that a ban may be needed, but they should not be considered at all a part of the banning process.
Sign In or Register to comment.