Nick Against the World (61 Viewers)

[Zlatan]

++ [ originally posted by Holygr4le ] ++


Good point. But within the laws you (not you Zlatan, you in general) have to be consistent. I agree on that he has gone over the line but if 50 others do the same shouldn´t they also be banned?

It's impossible to treat everyone the same, because each case is different, and indeed, we are all different, and it's impossible for 4 different people to have the exact same behaviour towards hundreds of other different people.

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[Holygr4le]

++ [ originally posted by Zlatan ] ++
It's impossible to treat everyone the same, because each case is different, and indeed, we are all different, and it's impossible for 4 different people to have the exact same behaviour towards hundreds of other different people.

It´s hard trying to concentrate and having a serious discussion with that avatar of yours...

 

[Chxta]

Wow! World War III is happening here and I have been missing a lot of the fun! :down:

 

[Chxta]

++ [ originally posted by Holygr4le ] ++


It´s hard trying to concentrate and having a serious discussion with that avatar of yours...

 

[mikhail]

++ [ originally posted by Holygr4le ] ++
Good point. But within the laws you (not you Zlatan, you in general) have to be consistent. I agree on that he has gone over the line but if 50 others do the same shouldn´t they also be banned?

As Z said, we're only human. The rules here have been applied quite sparingly for a long time now, so when someone gets banned for either something persistant or something over the top, lots of people claim they've been singled out. So of your 51 people, the chances are that 50 of them step over the line on occasion (heck, the mods do to, see my first sentance), but the 51st is banned for persistant racism, inanity, lack of respect for other members or whatever else brought them to the mod's attention.

There being four of us, we also don't see everything. There were nearly 800 posts here since I last logged on; I will read maybe 100-200 of them before I log off to get some work done. For example, I haven't read most of what Seven was banned for, but I trust that Swag's concerns and Z's ban were justified.

 

[Holygr4le]

++ [ originally posted by mikhail ] ++

As Z said, we're only human. The rules here have been applied quite sparingly for a long time now, so when someone gets banned for either something persistant or something over the top, lots of people claim they've been singled out. So of your 51 people, the chances are that 50 of them step over the line on occasion (heck, the mods do to, see my first sentance), but the 51st is banned for persistant racism, inanity, lack of respect for other members or whatever else brought them to the mod's attention.

There being four of us, we also don't see everything. There were nearly 800 posts here since I last logged on; I will read maybe 100-200 of them before I log off to get some work done. For example, I haven't read most of what Seven was banned for, but I trust that Swag's concerns and Z's ban were justified.

My point is just that in the very short time I’ve been here (did not knew it existed earlier) you often see bad language and personal assaults. I would embrace a system where you get an official warning in your PM (not in public that is) so you know that you are loose. That warning or reprimand is active for lets say 30 days. In that way you know the rules to play within.

The argument I stated earlier about the 50 others I ridiculous. I know… It’s like telling the cops that got you for speeding that you shouldn’t have a ticket cause you saw 5 other speeding the same road the day before…

 

[Chxta]

++ [ originally posted by Holygr4le ] ++


My point is just that in the very short time I’ve been here (did not knew it existed earlier) you often see bad language and personal assaults. I would embrace a system where you get an official warning in your PM (not in public that is) so you know that you are loose. That warning or reprimand is active for lets say 30 days. In that way you know the rules to play within.

The argument I stated earlier about the 50 others I ridiculous. I know… It’s like telling the cops that got you for speeding that you shouldn’t have a ticket cause you saw 5 other speeding the same road the day before…

Good point.

 

[mikhail]

++ [ originally posted by Holygr4le ] ++
My point is just that in the very short time I’ve been here (did not knew it existed earlier) you often see bad language and personal assaults. I would embrace a system where you get an official warning in your PM (not in public that is) so you know that you are loose. That warning or reprimand is active for lets say 30 days. In that way you know the rules to play within.

That's an interesting idea.

I've (nearly) always gone for a public warning, because I wanted to
(a) let everyone else know that this wasn't acceptable behaviour and
(b) let everyone know that the mods actually try to deal with this stuff,
because I've gotten complaints in the past that we don't do enough to keep the forum tidy and friendly. (Though the same people complain when anything is said to them!)

 

[Zlatan]

++ [ originally posted by mikhail ] ++

That's an interesting idea.

I've (nearly) always gone for a public warning, because I wanted to
(a) let everyone else know that this wasn't acceptable behaviour and
(b) let everyone know that the mods actually try to deal with this stuff,
because I've gotten complaints in the past that we don't do enough to keep the forum tidy and friendly. (Though the same people complain when anything is said to them!)

Exactly.

 

[Holygr4le]

++ [ originally posted by mikhail ] ++
That's an interesting idea.

I've (nearly) always gone for a public warning, because I wanted to
(a) let everyone else know that this wasn't acceptable behaviour and
(b) let everyone know that the mods actually try to deal with this stuff,
because I've gotten complaints in the past that we don't do enough to keep the forum tidy and friendly. (Though the same people complain when anything is said to them!)

The thought is not bad but in reality i can turn into an argument witch blur out the lines of correctness.
IMO the mods should be consistence and follow the rules (that are there in the best interest of the forum) hard.
It could also be a system where when you receive your first ban it is a temporary ban for 60 days.
But the main thing is to have a banning strategy on paper that makes it easier for us to follow and easier for you to monitor. Right?

 

[mikhail]

++ [ originally posted by Holygr4le ] ++
The thought is not bad but in reality i can turn into an argument witch blur out the lines of correctness.

That can be an excuse too, like Claire claiming I have smoething against her by personally (and racially) attacking me in response to me warning her. Maybe you're right. I'll certainly discuss this with the others in more depth.

IMO the mods should be consistence and follow the rules (that are there in the best interest of the forum) hard.

Unfortunately, the community here's gotten used to a lot of them not being applied too hard. I think we've been heading in the right direction (more or less) recently. It's something that needs continual review.

It could also be a system where when you receive your first ban it is a temporary ban for 60 days.
But the main thing is to have a banning strategy on paper that makes it easier for us to follow and easier for you to monitor. Right?

Sure. The thing is, to temp ban now is really awkward. We can all ban, but only Marty can unban. The VB3 upgrade that's coming (but slow as Christmas!) will let us temp ban someone so that they are unbanned automatically. We can probably do more of that then. 60 days might be a bit harsh though!

 

[Chxta]

Why not a compromise, a public warning as well as a PM. Having said that, were I a mod, I'd probably be very harsh, so I shouldn't really chuk mai mat in this issue.

 

[mikhail]

++ [ originally posted by Chxta ] ++
Why not a compromise, a public warning as well as a PM. Having said that, were I a mod, I'd probably be very harsh, so I shouldn't really chuk mai mat in this issue.

Probably not a bad addition to a public warning in case its intended target didn't read it.

 

[Holygr4le]

As I stated before.
Regardless of the outcome a concrete strategy with clear and conclusive lines.

As:
1: Warning.
Both private and public. Never comment or discuss the warning in public.
At this point the warned member is monitored 30 days and will be banned if the behaviour is repeated.

2: Temp Ban.
The temp ban is also both private and public.
If it is a first offence the temp ban is 20 days. 2nd time offence 40 days and 3rd time it turns into a permanent ban.

3. All warnings and banning posts is showed in a special thread so members know who is warned or banned and why.

 

[Slagathor]

Kinda glad I turned down the offer to come back as moderator; would've been a fiasco I'm sure...

 

[Chxta]

Na wa o

 

[JCK]

Claire rocks

 

[Chxta]

Does she?

 

[Mr. Gol]

++ [ originally posted by Jeeks ] ++
Claire rocks

Actually she is a bit silly for actually listing her detications in alphabetical order.

 

[Lawnchair Bes]

she thinks i m cute