EoFF should start using Temp-Bans.

[Agent Proto]

I believe EoFF should start using Temp-Bans instead of the current warn several times, then ban, or the insta-ban.

However, warnings should still be used, but I think this system would still work, but knowing teh staff is too lazy to even bother with a temp ban, I know this would be shot down, but allow me to explain how this could work.

The current system is flawed, in my opinion. Sure, it works, but EoFF will lose valuable members for a simple mistake, like "posting porn", unless the porn was intentionally posted to get banned.

So, I would like to propose a new system using temp-bans.

First offense (flaming, getting by the swear filter, etc) - In thread warn.
Second offense - In thread and/or PM warn.
Third offense - Temp ban (One week - One Month temp ban, depending on offense)
Fourth offense (after return) - Permanent ban

Now, with the porn pics.
First offense - Temp ban (One - Three Month tem-ban, depending on what was posted. The more offensive the picture, the longer the temp-ban) or Permanent ban (if picture was posted with the intent to get banned)
Second offense (after return) - Permanent ban

The staff may not like this, but I think it will work. EoFF will keep more members this way, and once someone has been temp ban, they will learn what not to do. Though, they should know before hand, but this is a way for EoFF to keep good members.

Of course, with this system, you could finally give problematic members a temp-ban to get your point across to them that what they're doing is not right, and if they continuing doing it once they return from a temp ban, they can get the permanent ban.

This gives members a second chance to shine, if they haven't done so the first time.

Of course, I'll accept whatever the staff decides regarding this issue.

(sorry about the earlier comment. :( )

[Raistlin]

I don't agree with the "first offence, second offence" crap. Things should be handled on a case-by-case basis as much as possible.

However, I do agree with the temp-ban usage idea. That way someone who's been warned 50 times for double-posting doesn't get banned for double-posting, but just gets a "wake-up call," for lack of a better term.

EDIT: Also, Proto, it doesn't help your cause any by, in your suggestions, calling the staff lazy and telling them what their decision will be.

[Agent Proto]

Yes, I was just putting this up as a rough draft. It's bound to be polished when more posts and idea come along.

[eestlinc]

the problem with temp bans is they don't really have consequences and could be abused. If people just use their brains then they won't get banned.

[Agent Proto]

No, I was thinking that temp bans should only be used when someone has been "warned too many times" like Raistlin pointed out. This could give them a "wake up call" that what they're doing isn't right. Of course, I suggest that the temp-ban will be used once for everyone, before finally banning them permanently.

Think of it like this, say that the staff has been warning someone repeatedly for double posting, reviving old threads, and other simple annoyances. After way too many warning, they give the member a one week temp-ban to get the point that what the person keeps doing is wrong. After the temp ban is lifted, if the person continues, then the staff can permanently ban that person.

And I think this would also be a way to keep members, like Peter, who accidentally posted porn, unless it was intentionally posted to get banned. (examples: HOOTERS and Baloki. Both posted porn with the intent to get banned.)

[Raistlin]

the problem with temp bans is they don't really have consequences and could be abused. If people just use their brains then they won't get banned.
I agree with that entirely.

Thinking about it, I have really no particular stance on this issue. I've never used temp-bans at tGA or FG, in the few instances I was forced to ban someone. It seems to me, that Staff gives plenty of warnings around here, and that if banned, it's the members' fault.

Now, an argument could be made in the situation of, say, Peter, which was somewhat of a borderline image. Mayhap a temp-ban would have been warranted there, but then you'd get all the friends of banned members complaining that they were never temp-banned first, and there's some people that just outright warrant banning.

So, I can see the arguments for both sides, but I think it's probably safer to go with ban or no ban.

[Yamaneko]

We have temp bans from the forums that matter. We allow more leeway in the other forums, so when the time comes we just say, "hey, we gave you a whole lotta <s>love</s> chances, bye", and be done with the problem. The system works now.

[Shlup]

Proto made a suggestion that I don't feel the immediate need to say no to? What warped reality have I fallen into?

I agree with temp-bannings. Hell, I agree with unbanning previously banned members. Even Sean has said it shouldn't be such a big deal, or something along those lines.

[Raistlin]

I agree with temp-bannings. Hell, I agree with unbanning previously banned members. Even Sean has said it shouldn't be such a big deal, or something along those lines.
Temp-bans, sure. As I said, I can see both sides.

Unbanning previously banned members? Absolutely not. Maybe it's only because of the way FG handled those kinds of situation, but that's just opening the door to drama and tension that were closed when the guy was banned. It's just wrong.
Now, of course, that depends on the situation. If it was uncovered, a month or so after the banning, that the guy was out of town and some friend hijacked his account and went on a rampage(i.e., what happened to Cid xD), then sure. But it has to be 100% certainty that the banned member didn't do anything at all banworthy.

[MecaKane]

With that you could still have people posting porn and claiming it was an accident, like could happen with the one chance rule you suggested.
"Oh, I've got exams coming up, ok eoff here's some porn! See you in a month." Or just to be assholes and not minding comming back in a month.

It's not like people are getting banned left right and center around here. Everyone gets 50 thousand chances, with everything but porn.

[Leeza]

I agree with everything that Kane has just said.

Temp bans would be far more trouble than not. What we have now seems to be working just fine, in my opinion.

[Flamethrower]

Yeah, like I said in a thread awhile back, I really don't like the idea of permantely kicking someone out of our community for posting one naughty picture. Whatever happened to love and forgiveness and other hippy stuff like that?

If someone posted a porn picture, I think a one year ban would be a fair punishment. It gives them time to mature.

[Yamaneko]

In one year they'd probably have a new IP anyway.

[Flamethrower]

Maybe, but then they would have to register a new screenname and pretend they are someone different, or else they would just get banned again. Some people wouldn't mind that, but I think others would like to be themselves again, if that makes sense.

[Agent Proto]

Of course it can be abused, but how often do people accidently post porn? Not very often. Most often, it's done on purpose nowadays. Peter's case, was accidental. He was trying to attach a picture of himself, but he attached something deemed inappropriate, and got in trouble with it.

Am I saying that everyone is going to post porn and will get a temp ban for it? No, I am not. I am only using this in the case of it being truly accidental, like it was in Peter's case.

And it's true that a lot of people get tons of chances, however, do I think they will learn if they continue getting a lot of chances? Likely they won't because they keep getting the thousands of warning from staff and not getting banned immediately. If they were banned for a week, that will tell them that what they're doing is not right, and will likely stop because they won't get another warning.

[MecaKane]

It's not hard to figure out if someone incharge pms you and tells you to stop doing something, that what you're doing is wrong and you should probably stop.

[Raistlin]

Am I saying that everyone is going to post porn and will get a temp ban for it? No, I am not. I am only using this in the case of it being truly accidental, like it was in Peter's case.
I'd like to know how you verified that it was definitely accidental.

[Agent Proto]

Most common regulars don't want to get banned. There are a few who do. It also by the content of the post. If it was in a photo thread, it's likely a mistake. If it's in its own thread, probably done on purpose.

Come on, you should know that a thread titled "Omg, bye!" with a porn picture inside was done on purpose.



It's not hard to figure out if someone incharge pms you and tells you to stop doing something, that what you're doing is wrong and you should probably stop.
Not everyone reads their PM.

[Kawaii Ryûkishi]

Even Sean has said it shouldn't be such a big deal, or something along those lines.Looking forward to Aaron Freed quoting this in four years.

[Big D]

I don't agree with the "first offence, second offence" crap. Things should be handled on a case-by-case basis as much as possible.

However, I do agree with the temp-ban usage idea. That way someone who's been warned 50 times for double-posting doesn't get banned for double-posting, but just gets a "wake-up call," for lack of a better term.

EDIT: Also, Proto, it doesn't help your cause any by, in your suggestions, calling the staff lazy and telling them what their decision will be.I agree with all of this. Sometimes, a permanent ban just isn't warranted. Temporary bans have been used before, and have been effective. Case-by-case is the best approach; over time, good precedents and procedures will emerge by themselves, prettymuch.

[Raistlin]

Most common regulars don't want to get banned. There are a few who do, like Baloki. If you read his LJ prior to his banning, he's been complaining about wanting to get banned. Or something. It also by the content of the post. If it was in a photo thread, it's likely a mistake. If it's in its own thread, probably done on purpose.
Just because they don't want to get banned doesn't mean Peter didn't intentionally post that image. I would say the more likely event was he thought the image was appropriate, posted it, then said it was accidental when he got in trouble for it.


Not everyone reads their PM.
Not the Staff's fault. And for every banning I've heard of, they'd been warned in threads, too.


Looking forward to Aaron Freed quoting this in four years.
x-freakin'-D

[Agent Proto]

Just because they don't want to get banned doesn't mean Peter didn't intentionally post that image. I would say the more likely event was he thought the image was appropriate, posted it, then said it was accidental when he got in trouble for it.


Sometimes they do think it's appropriate, like Bert's case. Though, not deliberately wanting to get banned, that case should at least warrant a couple month temp ban, as with Peter.

So, maybe if the porn was in its own thread, that could mean permanent ban.

Edit: In any case, I will accept this thread getting closed, but I won't accept the decision made by most of the staff. I will only accept Cid's words regarding temp-bans as final.

BTW: I'm not endorsing staff to unban Peter. As much as I would like to see him unbanned, it's best that he stay banned.

[Shlup]

If one more person says Peter posted that picture by accident I am going to scream.

[Raistlin]

Sometimes they do think it's appropriate, like Bert's case. Though, not deliberately wanting to get banned, that case should at least warrant a couple month temp ban, as with Peter.
Bert, as Staff admitted, was a mistake and should have been banned.


So, maybe if the porn was in its own thread, that could mean permanent ban.
I don't see how that effects anything. What's next? Porn in GC being worse than porn in FF7?


I agree with all of this. Sometimes, a permanent ban just isn't warranted. Temporary bans have been used before, and have been effective.
I think the "drink tank" is effective. Other forms of temp-banning haven't been used in a while, but the "drink-tank" is definitely an effective form of temp-ban, and I think it should be used more. Maybe something similar?

[Agent Proto]

Raist, could you explain the "drink tank"?

[Psychotic]

If one more person says Peter posted that picture by accident I am going to scream.Yeah, everyone knows Peter did it to deliberately spite the other members and hopefully to cause irrepairable emotional damage. :rolleyes2

[Yamaneko]

*drunk tank

[Raistlin]

Raist, could you explain the "drink tank"?
It's the user-group they put HOOTERS in when he made 3489057438957943 drunk posts/threads. xD

Raf was put in it yesterday when he got so pissed at the Staff.

From what I've heard, it's like a banned group, but not really. It just disables posting and thread-making.

[Yamaneko]

It only disables thread-making.

[eestlinc]

I thought you can't post at all, but you can still view everything.

[Raistlin]

WesM 118: Question...does the Drunk Tank disable all post making?
DanieLoony: Yup.
DanieLoony: Not PMs etc. though.

[Yamaneko]

I thought Endless was posting under that group?

[Raistlin]

WesM 118: "I thought Endless was posting under that group?" - Yams
DanieLoony: Nah, we just never removed his avatar after putting him in.

[Del Murder]

I don't like the idea of temp bans. No eoeo is fine because some people don't realize the stricter rules in those forums at first. We tend to give a lot of warnings before a non porn ban, so if you still screw up despite those then you don't deserve to come back here. As for porn, you are always free to pm a moderator with the image you want to post so that we can review it first. We're pretty clear that this is a sensitive issue, so there's no reason to take the images you post lightly.

Proto, why would you only 'accept' Cid's final word on the temp ban idea? We're the ones who would have to impliment and keep track of it. I don't think he checks Feedback much, so if you want his views you should probably pm him.

[Agent Proto]

Hm... You're right, I will accept what the staff decides (likely no temp-bans). However, I won't be completely satisfied, because I would like to hear Cid's view on this, whether straight from his post, or by someone else he had talked to, and if he agrees with the rest of staff, I'll leave it as is.

Edit; Honestly, I would like to see temp-bans be put to use here, in some way or another. I don't want to see prominent members get banned permanently by a mistake, or see members get warned gajillion times before officially getting banned.

[Raistlin]

I don't want to see prominent members get banned permanently by a mistake, or see members get warned gajillion times before officially getting banned.
I can't think of anyone that was banned by mistake, prominent or not. Also, if a member's warned a gajillion times for something, and they don't listen, they deserve a banning.

I can see the merits of temp-banning, and see how they could be put to good use in the case of certain situations. However, I can also see how it could cause more problems then it could solve. Staff hasn't yet had such a dilemna with a banning yet that would warrant such a change in policy, as far as I know.

[Big D]

I can't think of anyone that was banned by mistake, prominent or not. Also, if a member's warned a gajillion times for something, and they don't listen, they deserve a banning.If they've repeatedly done something not-so-serious, then a temp-ban could be a good kick in the pants. For example, someone who tries to bypass the swear filter often or who posts too much spam.
A temporary ban was used earlier this year, when a member (who shall remain nameless) posted a hoax thread in EoEO, complete with pictures, pretending to be pregnant. Other members have been banned for limited periods, too.

I'm not saying that serious offences should receive only temp-ban penalties; but allowances should be made in less-serious cases.

Factors like a member's overall contribution to EoFF should be a factor, as well. Someone who registers and then starts spamming nonsense should be banned outright, but a respected and productive member who sometimes posts "quality spam" (Del Murder, for instance) obviously doesn't warrant permanent banning.

[Flamethrower]

You never know, cloudxsquall89643 that got permabanned for spamming the FF forums could one day be a pillar of this community, if only he was temp-banned. It's possible. :cry:

[Yamaneko]

Yeah, and I'll be the President of Uzbekistan someday too.

[Agent Proto]

A perfect <a href="http://forums.eyesonff.com/member.php?u=12496">case</a> where a temp-ban would fit the bill.

[Leeza]

No, Proto. It wouldn't help that case at all unfortunately. :)

[Agent Proto]

How would you know? You've warned her countless times, yet she still continues to break the rules. A one week temp-ban will be able to set it straight that what she's doing is not right.

But that's just my opinion, you may continue with what you're doing, giving her countless more warnings, until she on her "last straw" whenever that may be. :love:

[Yamaneko]

Cram it, Proto.

[Del Murder]

But that's just my opinion, you may continue with what you're doing, giving her countless more warnings, until she on her "last straw" whenever that may be. :love:
Yesterday.

The system works!

[edczxcvbnm]

I have this much to say.

EoFF is a bunch of cops writing tickets. Get to many tickets and you get the death penalty. Where does jail time come in? The system is fucking retarded.

Although I would like to say that I am one of the few members that has been has had 2 things happen to them that may never happen to anyone else ever again. Being banned and suspended. I would also like to say I didn't learn my lesson :D

[Shlup]

I don't know if the idea of banning people for a particular length of time is a good idea, but I think a banned person should be able to appeal their banning after some time, and we could discuss it and vote and all that stuff. I wouldn't mind letting some people come back.

Not Peter though. :D

[Del Murder]

That might be an interesting idea. Gives us something to do, at least.

[Shlup]

It would at least make for interesting staff discussions.

[Zell's Fists of Fury]

[01:11] -Katson- if I ever get back on that site I swear to god I will ruin that site!

Pretty sure we don't want her back.

[Shlup]

Oh, but we do.

[Endless]

I thought Endless was posting under that group?


The post of mine you edited was posted before I got tanked. Can't remember if it was before or after the post in Feedback that clout and BoB simultaneously edited, though. Later on, BoB changed my avatar to a picture of a bunch of fishes with "April's fool" written on it cause I asked him to while I was in the tank.

[Loony BoB]

I disagree with month-long temp bannings, definitely. People could be leaving for a few months anyway and just decide to have some fun on the way out. I can think of countless members that would find it amusing.

There are too many problems, in my opinion, in this kind of process.

The reactions from the members every single time we temp-ban someone.

The fact that some members will get temp banned and then have one month or so to plan a massive outburst in the forums in retaliation.

The constant trouble in deciding what is temp-ban worthy and what is perma-ban worthy.

The problem of unbanning previously banned members.

The problem of people thinking that they might get away without a permaban and then arguing forever if they get permabanned. If people know that they're going to be gone for life when they get banned, then they don't do things to get banned. It's much like the old tougher penalties for certain crimes. The tougher penalties are put in place so people don't mess around at all.

The problem of the many temp-banned people picking up grudges against Staff in general (or certain individuals amongst Staff) after they've come back.

The problem of more people preaching favouritism and elitism. Because regardless of what anyone says, it will happen. Even when we ban people like Linus, people say we're inconsistent. Do you guys honestly think you'll give us an easier time if this process was put in place? Hell no! You'd question every banning. At least every banning of someone you recognised. I would probably do the same in your position. That's why it shouldn't be done at all.

One thing I would agree with is a 2-3 year ban. This would give certain people a lot of time to grow up. It wouldn't be set in stone - it would start out as a permaban - but then they could appeal via email to their banning after the 2-3 years has passed. If we feel that they are genuinely sorry and sincere about it, then we can let them back in.

The system we have right now works, though, and I don't see any reason why we should change it. It's worked for over five years.

[The Captain]

"One thing I would agree with is a 2-3 year ban. This would give certain people a lot of time to grow up. It wouldn't be set in stone - it would start out as a permaban - but then they could appeal via email to their banning after the 2-3 years has passed. If we feel that they are genuinely sorry and sincere about it, then we can let them back in."

That's an interesting idea. To add to that, if someone came back after this period and did something else, then they should be banned for good, though that would probably be the rule anyway.

Take care all.

[Shlup]

Sugpo has been banned 2-3 years.

[Loony BoB]

Sugpo has been banned 2-3 years.
Yeah. Well, he'd have the right to appeal, and then we can tell him to bugger off all over again. :D

[Shlup]

Yeah, he'd get a couple more years for more recent bad behaviors. Haha.

[-N-]

It's the user-group they put HOOTERS in when he made 3489057438957943 drunk posts/threads. xD

Raf was put in it yesterday when he got so pissed at the Staff.

From what I've heard, it's like a banned group, but not really. It just disables posting and thread-making.
If there is a group for drunk posting, why aren't I in it? :p

I think temp-bans are a good idea. I equate them to being slapped in the face, which my father used to do often when I was a misbehaving child. Needless to say, I shaped up pretty quickly.

[Raistlin]

I don't know if the idea of banning people for a particular length of time is a good idea, but I think a banned person should be able to appeal their banning after some time, and we could discuss it and vote and all that stuff. I wouldn't mind letting some people come back.

Not Peter though. :D
I would agree with temp-bans much more than that. Temp-bans is a way not to ban members who've merely been warned for going around the swear filter 20 or so times. They get banned for a month. If they don't really care about EoFF, then they'll leave for good. If they come back and start doing it again, they get banned. However, they could learn that there will be consequences to their actions, no matter how minor they see them, and shape up. This is only for repeated minor offences, such as spaming, double-posting, swearing, etc.

Bringing back banned members is not good, unless it's revealed somehow with complete certainty that they never did whatever they were banned for. That brings back a helluva lot more drama than temp-banning would. People would be appealing bans left-and-right, you'd get about 50 "unban Peter" threads, etc.


The constant trouble in deciding what is temp-ban worthy and what is perma-ban worthy.
I don't think that's trouble at all. They only get temp-banned if it's judged that they only did very minor offences, repeatedly.


The problem of people thinking that they might get away without a permaban and then arguing forever if they get permabanned. If people know that they're going to be gone for life when they get banned, then they don't do things to get banned. It's much like the old tougher penalties for certain crimes. The tougher penalties are put in place so people don't mess around at all.

The problem of the many temp-banned people picking up grudges against Staff in general (or certain individuals amongst Staff) after they've come back.
Send them a message when they get temp-banned or when they come back: you're on probation, and if you do <i>anything</i> else, you're banned. No questions.


One thing I would agree with is a 2-3 year ban. This would give certain people a lot of time to grow up. It wouldn't be set in stone - it would start out as a permaban - but then they could appeal via email to their banning after the 2-3 years has passed. If we feel that they are genuinely sorry and sincere about it, then we can let them back in.
...I don't know how I feel about this. I guess if they still care to come back after two years, it's not much of a problem. But it'd have to be well-announced so the members would know that. But I agree in that someone who was banned for definitely doing something shouldn't be able to come back right away on appeal. This also depends on what they actually did, how mature they seem now, etc, but that's all part of the appeals process.

How long has it been since Greg was banned? :D

[Del Murder]

I don't think he'd come back even if we'd let him. :(

[Raistlin]

Especially since he hasn't even been online in months. ;_;

[Zell's Fists of Fury]

He was in chat yesterday

[Jojee]

Greg's online all the time, doofus ;) You're just not on his "invisible unblock list" :p Bwahaha.

[Raistlin]

Greg's online all the time, doofus ;) You're just not on his "invisible unblock list" :p Bwahaha.
Holy <img src="/xxx.gif"><img src="/xxx.gif"><img src="/xxx.gif"><img src="/xxx.gif">, tell the sexy beast to AIM me sometime, then. :p

[Shlup]

Greg does not converse with the likes of YOU.

Someone tell him to appeal his banning. Do it!

[Raistlin]

Someone tell him to appeal his banning. Do it!
I would if I knew whatever his current SN was. ;_;

[Shlup]

Greg does not converse with the likes of YOU.

[Raistlin]

He has for the past two years!

Apparently, he only had krissy unblocked from his list. xD

krissy told Jojo, who just told me. I'll talk to him...he might not want to come back, but I'll talk to him.

Could I appeal his case on his behalf? =D

[Del Murder]

Sure. We'll need a witness list in advance.

[Jojee]

I'll be the lawyer!

[Raistlin]

I'll be the lawyer!
...twerp, if I appeal the case in Greg's name, then I'm his lawyer. :p

You can be my secretary, though. I'll put a nice cushion under the table for you.

[Jojee]

Screw you, I'll be the lawyer for the other side, then!

Edit: Waitaminute, that's not nice :p Why would I be under the table?

[Raistlin]

Screw you
It'll be difficult to do that if you're not my secretary.


Edit: Waitaminute, that's not nice :p Why would I be under the table?
xDDDDD

Anyway, back on topic: how would this appeals thing go with Staff from a banned member? How would they get in contact with each other?

[Del Murder]

I'm holding you two in contempt.

AIM I guess.

[Meat Puppet]

practice temp-ban on jojo

[Psychotic]

practice temp-ban on jojoBut if you want to practice perma-ban on her, we won't mind. :)

[Jojee]

Why am I in contempt? :( I just volunteered to be a lawyer. *runs away crying* ._.

Practice exorcism on MP >=o

Edit: and practice taking a shower, Psy, you stink :p

[Raistlin]

I'm holding you two in contempt.

AIM I guess.

What if he doesn't know any Staffers AIMs?

It makes more sense to me to put the banned person in a new usergroup that can only post in this special forum, and then maybe give a friend of his access to help him appeal his case. Then both of them can post how they think he should be unbanned, and then the Staff can ask questions and such, and then review it. Or something like that.

[Jojee]

LOL. :p :p :p A special forum full of banned members. XD Imagine the fun. Let me in it if you ever do.

[Shlup]

If they can't get a staff members email or AIM name, they're probably too dumb to come back anyway. :p

[Raistlin]

If they can't get a staff members email or AIM name, they're probably too dumb to come back anyway. :p
It just seems to me a rather haphazard way to do things to have the banned guy IM a staffer and ask them to be unbanned.

Although, ideally, there'd be pre-trial motions and oral arguments and witnesses and cross-examinations, so I guess you can't have everything. :p

EDIT: Twerp, not for all banned members, doofus. Just for the ones who are put in there after they've been banned two years or whatever, and can appeal.

[Del Murder]

I think we'd only want people back who really care, and if they really cared they'd find a way to contact us. The more organized this idea gets the more dumb it becomes. Let's not forget that these people did stupid things to get themselves banned, so pretty much all the leeway is going to go towards minimizing the effort on our part.

[Shlup]

I don't think it's worth the effort to institute some fancy system for people who've already been kicked outta here. Just send a staff member a message, have a friend or two send one if they want, staff'll talk about it, and then say yes or no.

[Raistlin]

But how can you be sure all the evidence has been presented, all the possible witnesses been called, all the testimoney been given, all the possible discussion been done, without some sort of more organizational plan for all this? :p

[Shlup]

DOES EVERYTHING HAVE TO TURN INTO A BIG FUCKING DEAL WITH YOU? Go ride a fucking bike or something.

[Raistlin]

Do you have to take every "suggestion" I make so seriously? :p

I haven't been serious for the past four or five posts now.

[eestlinc]

apparently we have implemented temp bans now. To get one, you just need to annoy Shlup.

[Raistlin]

Oh <img src="/xxx.gif"><img src="/xxx.gif"><img src="/xxx.gif"><img src="/xxx.gif">.

[Shlup]

This system has always been in place. You just haven't noticed 'cause you couldn't view the WML until recently, eest. I AM A MONSTER!

[Raistlin]

"I AM RE-OPENZILLA! RAWR!"

xD

EDIT: How many times have I been on this WML? =o

[Shlup]

*searches the WML for "Raistlin"*

*laughs at the results*

I can't post that. xD

[eestlinc]

is WML like XML? :D

[Raistlin]

*searches the WML for "Raistlin"*

*laughs at the results*

I can't post that. xD
=o

Ok, now I'm curious. What have I ever, really done wrong? I can't remember breaking any rules besides maybe spamming. :p

[Agent Proto]

What's this WML? Am I on it?

[Jojee]

Can I be on it, oh me me, pleeease ^_^

[Shlup]

Warned Members List, dummies.

No, Raist, you don't have your very own thread. Don't get your panties in a bunch.

[Agent Proto]

Oh that's right! Been almost a year since I left staff and I already forgot. ;_;

[Raistlin]

No, Raist, you don't have your very own thread. Don't get your panties in a bunch.
...I didn't ever say anything remotely like that. You seemed to suggest that I was on it a lot, and I was merely wondering why. :p

[eestlinc]

Warned Members List, dummies.

I know that, I was just making a bad joke.

[Raistlin]

I think Shlup was responding to Proto's question and Jojo's stupid request. :p

[Psychotic]

Oh that's right! Been almost a year since I left staff and I already forgot. ;_;I'm on it, and it's all your fault, MAPS-closer. :mad2:

Apparently I also got warned because I talked about invading Finland, so says Sephiroth1999AD.

I'm such a rebel. :cool:

[Agent Proto]

I'm on it, and it's all your fault, MAPS-closer. :mad2:


My last great accomplishment as a Cid's Knight. *proud*

[Psychotic]

My last great accomplishment as a Cid's Knight. *proud*Last? Try only :laugh:

[Raistlin]

Last? Try only :laugh:
buuuuuuurned xD

[Yamaneko]

Proto did a lot of great things of which I can't recall any, but did them nonetheless.

[Agent Proto]

Anyway, I've given up on the temp-bans. Though, I agree with Raist and Big D that it should be used in certain cases. And I think 2-3 years is too long for a temp-ban.

[Raistlin]

Anyway, I've given up on the temp-bans. Though, I agree with Raist and Big D that it should be used in certain cases. And I think 2-3 years is too long for a temp-ban.
It's not a temp-ban. It's a perma-ban with the possibility of appeal after two years.

[Shlup]

...I didn't ever say anything remotely like that. You seemed to suggest that I was on it a lot, and I was merely wondering why. :p
Toooo bad.

[Carnage]

Can anyone view the WML?

[Raistlin]

Can anyone view the WML?
It's just threads in Staff forum saying "so and so" was warned for "such and such," or so I've been told. It's not an actual published list or anything.

[m4tt]

Can anyone view the WML?If you wanted to know, you do have a thread in there. It's big'un too. ;)

[eestlinc]

but it's ok, I have one in there too. :D

[Jojee]

Do I? =o

[eestlinc]

no, but XXXsephirothXXX does.

[Jojee]

Are you joking? xD

[Raistlin]

...*shakes head sadly*

[Jojee]

WHAT! :p

[eestlinc]

there's like 200 different warning threads in there, so I'm not about to start looking up every member who asks.

[Shlup]

You use the "Search Forum" button to look up members on the WML, eest. xP

I have three threads on the WML. xD

[Raistlin]

All about me. <3

Well, maybe one about Doomy, too.

[Del Snizz]

As someone who was temporarily banned from this very board, I wholeheartedly support the concept of temporary bans.

[eestlinc]

You use the "Search Forum" button to look up members on the WML, eest. xP

yes I know, but that would still involve effort.

[Raistlin]

eest looks like he'll fit in perfectly with the Staff!

[Shlup]

All about me. <3

Well, maybe one about Doomy, too.
Thread where I was warned, not threads I made, nerd.

[Raistlin]

Haha, I can guess one of them, then. :p

[Psychotic]

But how can you be sure all the evidence has been presented, all the possible witnesses been called, all the testimoney been given, all the possible discussion been done, without some sort of more organizational plan for all this? :pYou spelt testimony wrong, Raist. I hope Shlup mercilessly tortures you for it. :)

[Shlup]

:p

You don't have any threads in the WML. All the threads about you are in the main staff forum and are several pages long and painful to read.

[Raistlin]

Then I will link to that one Maddox article where he rants about people with 90478654 typos in their messages sending him emails of making one typo every 5 or 6 pages. :p

EDIT: The above in response to Psy.

In response to Shlup: aww, I didn't know you cared enough to post so much about me. :love:

[Shlup]

*points the finger at BoB or perhaps Del*

[Agent Proto]

As someone who was temporarily banned from this very board, I wholeheartedly support the concept of temporary bans.

Quoted because Snizz is awesome.

[Raistlin]

Now now, Shlup, no need to use obscene gestures at your fellow staff members.

[edczxcvbnm]

What is this about a warned members list? I am sure I am on it but where is it? In the staff forum? So much I don't know about or really care about.

I agree with what Snizz said also because I was suspended also(I prefer that term to temp ban).

[Big D]

What is this about a warned members list? I am sure I am on it but where is it? In the staff forum? So much I don't know about or really care about.It's a sub-forum in the staff forum, so only current staff and the higher powers can see it.

I'm not saying whether you're on it or not. Important staff matters should not be discussed outside the staff forum under any circumstances.
:D

[-N-]

Shouldn't we at least be notified of our own status on said lists, via PM?

[Del Murder]

You are notified.

[-N-]

You are notified.
>_>
<_<
-_-

[edczxcvbnm]

How about being notified when we are off the list :D

[Shlup]

I'm not saying whether you're on it or not. Important staff matters should not be discussed outside the staff forum under any circumstances.
:D
You and I have very different ideas of what's important. Haha.

How about being notified when we are off the list :D
You're never off the list. :<3:

[edczxcvbnm]

You're never off the list. :<3:

I KNEW IT!

[Shlup]

Is that a surprise?

[edczxcvbnm]

No not really. I thought there might have been a sticky thread in there about me due to my history here. But since there is that list I doubt there is a need for a thread like that.

[Loony BoB]

Important staff matters should not be discussed outside the staff forum under any circumstances.
:D
I nearly laughed out loud when I read that. I wonder if Shlup got the joke. Oh well.

Why are people pointing at me?

Also, qutie a few staffers have WML threads. A couple of them are actually serious!

[Raistlin]

I nearly laughed out loud when I read that. I wonder if Shlup got the joke. Oh well.
I don't think she did, but I sure got it! I was going to post "*smacks D*" :p


Why are people pointing at me?
Shlup was making rude gestures. *nods*


Also, qutie a few staffers have WML threads. A couple of them are actually serious!
How many do you have? :rolleyes2

[Loony BoB]

I know there have been at least five threads with just "Loony BoB" as the thread title at EoFF at some point or another. Two in the staff forum, two in the WML and one in Gen Chat (the one Robb made way back in 2000), if I remember rightly. *self centered*

[Yamaneko]

Shlup warned me for going around the swear filter in staff. No one cared, though. :D

[Loony BoB]

Shlup warned me for going around the swear filter in staff. No one cared, though. :D
Bah, breaking rules in the staff forum is on par with religious exercise.

[Leeza]

Why are we talking about Staff outside of Staff?

[Endless]

Technically, I should have my own now. That or BoB and clout are more regarding than I thought.

Also, what Snizz said.

[Shlup]

YES I GOT THE FREAKING JOKE. Jeez.

[Endless]

What did I do/say? ;_;

[Raistlin]

YES I GOT THE FREAKING JOKE. Jeez.
Well that's good. I hope it didn't take you too long. :p

[Shlup]

Not you, Raf.

And we aren't talking about "Staff" outside of "Staff," Leeza; we're helping the members to realize that when they piss us off... we don't forget it.

[Leeza]

But there isn't even supposed to be a "Staff". This talk is going to wipe away all of the mystery for everyone and pretty soon the SP, DM and the LS Forums will also be common knowledge just like the WM and everyone will know that there is no Santa Claus. :( *sigh* I remember before I was a CK how the Staff Forum seemed like such an elusive place. It was almost like an urban myth...Was it true? Did it really exist? What did they do in there? No one knew for sure, and it was good for the people.

There is no "Staff". :)

[Loony BoB]

Well, as far as I'm concerned, as much as we talk about it here, it doesn't mean anything until we make a thread in the Staff Forum and talk about it there.

[Shlup]

*is amused*

Yeah, make a thread in staff so we can talk about what a stupid idea this is and how much we hate Prot. Muahahahaha.

[Loony BoB]

What, me? You guys make me do everything...

[Jojee]

May I see the staff forum ? n_n

[Shlup]

BoB: Yes, you. Do your job! (I'm in class. ^_^)
Jojo: You have.

[Raistlin]

I've seen the Staff forum!

[Agent Proto]

Me too!

[Psychotic]

Me three!

...Oh wait. :(

[Raistlin]

The Staff Forum at the EzBoard was boring as hell, though. Except when we had a thread complaining about Bleys. xD

[Del Murder]

We have those too.

[Zell's Fists of Fury]

I saw it once, when the board logged me in a Skanker

[Loony BoB]

A thread has now been raised in staff not regarding temp-bans but considering the possibility of allowing for appeals. Feel free to continue providing feedback, guys, but keep in mind that our decision will still be made in Staff and you might not get the decision you want.

And Shlup, you suck. *flick*

[Agent Proto]

Awesome.

[Raistlin]

Yay! Can you let me know what you decide? 'cause if they're allowed, I need to start badgering Greg.

Maybe I can lure him back with promises of action with krissy...

[Jojee]

Since when are you krissy's "action" manager? ;) Greg gets plenty of action with krissy anwyay on AIM. You just stick to managing RSL's campaign :p

Edit: Although it would be great to have Greggu back :tongue:

[Raistlin]

Hey, according to your story(how's that going, btw?), <i>I'm</i> getting all the action with Greg.

[Loony BoB]

Two years after a member has been banned, they can appeal against their banning by emailing a staff member at the time, who will then post the appeal into the Staff Forum. If there are NO objections to the return of said member by ANY staffers, then the member can return into the forums. It would be best if the appeal included a statement by the member that they are sincerely sorry for what they did and that they will not do such a thing again. A member can only appeal against their first ban. If they are banned again, then it is definitely forever.

I would like to emphasise that this is a trial run and that if at any point the members start to make a fuss about who is and isn't getting unbanned after they appeal, then we will quite likely can the idea and revert to never unbanning any members again, as was the case before this post was made.

I would like to make it very clear that the permabans are still in place. It's not going to be a case of "Anyone who doesn't get back in is unlucky" but a case of "Anyone getting back in early is very, very lucky." If any serious campaigning goes on for the unbanning of a member two years after they were banned, it's quite likely that we will not unban them and, as said before, can the idea of unbannings altogether.

In other words, any unbanning will be strictly a staff matter and we'd appreciate it if people didn't get involved. They can talk to the banned member and advise them that they can appeal after two years, sure, but we don't want people sending in appeals on other people's behalf and we don't want campaigns to either keep members banned or to unban members. This is a big enough change as it is for us, so I trust that everyone can respect it, be thankful for it and not get their hopes up over their friends getting back into EoFF.

[Raistlin]

Thanks for the update, BooB.

*gets to work*

[Leeza]

<i>Gets to work</i> on what, Raistlin?

[m4tt]

On looking for who got banned two years ago to tell them to apply for it? :D?

[Shlup]

Last I heard before leaving staff there was nothing to "get to work" on. Buncha old cranks.

[Psychotic]

Faris_the_guy will soon be able to come back...


I'm scared. Hold me. :eek:

[Leeza]

If any serious campaigning goes on for the unbanning of a member two years after they were banned, it's quite likely that we will not unban them and, as said before, can the idea of unbannings altogether.
I guess he missed this part.

[m4tt]

Last I heard before leaving staff there was nothing to "get to work" on. Buncha old cranks.There still is nothing to "get to work" on. :p



Faris_the_guy will soon be able to come back...


I'm scared. Hold me. :eek:
If there are NO objections to the return of said member by ANY staffers, then the member can return into the forums.:p

[Raistlin]

<i>Gets to work</i> on what, Raistlin?


I guess he missed this part.
Now, Leeza, how can you think so little of me? :rolleyes2

I was merely stating that I would need to..."get to work" on Greg. Someone needs to tell him, y'know. :p

[eestlinc]

you'll have to get to work on convincing him to apologize too.

[Raistlin]

Yeah, that's gonna be tough. Especially since most people on Staff still may not know why exactly he was banned. xD There was much confusion about this at the time, though I think I was able to find out to truth.