(user has been banned for this post)

I know that there has been many people banned, but later were allowed to post again. I also know that there is a EoEO ban.

However, should there be a clearer guideline for all users to read on what gets you banned and how long your ban will last. Maybe I'm in the dark since my activity has been sporadic until this year, but I remember initially that if you were banned--that's it. Sucks, but you can't post here.

Then somewhere along the line banned users were allowed to come back after a few months to a couple of years. Then the EoEO only ban was put in place, and now I am repeating myself.

Anyway, I think there should be more of a guideline to what gets you banned and for how long, if there isn't one already. If there is one, it should be revised I think, since the forum seems to become more lenient as time goes by. Note that I am using the word guideline. I don't think such a thing should fall on a strict set of rules because that type of attitude towards banning only makes users feel tense.

Thoughts?

I think the FAQ is clear enough. Use some common sense, staff go easy on first offenders, staff are typically lenient etc. Nowadays, if you get banned for any amount of time, you can be sure you deserved it. Or Psy is going on one of his rampages.

I think the guideline is two years. I think one would be plenty, depending on the offence; by the time two years go by, most people would no longer have an interest in coming back.

For people who want to be here and slip up badly, they might come back after a year and become a contributing member. After two...not so much. They've moved on.

EoEO bans have been around for a long time, and I think the guidelines on those are pretty clear. You're rude in that forum, you can temp-banned from that forum.

I also think having such a specific set of guidelines as to what constitutes a bannable offense only invites people to argue endlessly about whether or not a given situation fell within those guidelines (*cough*). Maybe I am not as hip to this because I've been here so long, but is this actually a problem? Are newer members confused about some of this stuff? Absent any real need for more info, I think the staff has generally done a good job as-is.

And yes, as far as I'm aware, perma-banned members are allowed to petition to have their ban lifted after two years. That timeframe is certainly something that could be debated, though. I tend to agree with Bleys that one year is probably enough, because the staff is under no obligation to ever lift someone's ban anyway.

If new members are getting confused I can just go get myself banned and appeal in two years to give a visual example.

I have been notified that the staff did in fact change the timeframe for appealing a ban to one year and I apparently forgot, probably because I didn't want to admit that they did something right for a change. So now I am advocating a mere 6 month delay! Wait, no... 6 minutes!

I think I'd actually be cool with six months. At least for a first offense, and certainly if they were a regular member in good standing long before whatever mental breakdown pushed them over the edge.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Citizen Bleys

For people who want to be here and slip up badly, they might come back after a year and become a contributing member. After two...not so much. They've moved on.

---

I came here to post essentially this. I think I would also have no problem with a six month ban, either, depending on the offense. These days, life moves so fast for all of us and as we all enter "old age," I'm not sure that people will dwell on the fact that in a year they can return to EoFF to start posting again. They'll most likely move on and not come back.

EoEo bans are fine the way they are.

For the petition bans, perhaps it is a better idea to go for one. I understand that the person has been banned for a reason, but I think a year is plenty of time for someone to reflect on themselves. I don't know, to me it seems a little harsh?

I also agree with shorty. Perhaps we should have different time frames (set out, ideally) for how bad that particular offence is. maybe 4,8 then one year? That seems farer to me.

People don't get banned around here for small stuff, chances are if you are wearing a shiny pink title you've smurfed up somewhere and probably need at least a year to grow up. Just think of it as exile if you must, you don't learn anything if you are back the next day.

I would have no problem with allowing for different time frames. Hell, I'd have no problem with everything being entirely case-by-case, but in this instance I think it's particularly helpful to have a standard guideline. Bans can lead to heated debates in staff, and requiring them to come up with a time limit for their appeal as well would be another hassle for every instance. It's probably best to have all bans last at least a set time, whether 6 months or a year.

There's no real point in having multiple options, because the staff is not obligated to unban anyone at anytime. So just because the period is, e.g., 6 months, doesn't mean more serious offenders have to be considered for unbanning then. It's for that reason that, if anything, the time requirement should err on the side of leniency. This gives the staff the maximum discretion to have lighter punishments for lighter offenses, while doing nothing to interfere with giving the douchebags a very long ban. So I really do support a 6 month ban.

6 months to a year makes a good baseline, with the appeal period modifiable by the banning officer based on the specifics of the case.

Yeah, I always thought of two years as stupidly long. It's a rare type of sad act who will care about EoFF after not having paid it any mind for two years. xD

6 - 12 months base line is a great idea, with appeal times being set by the one who banned. This would pretty much just do the job exactly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flambard D'Quinceteth

It's a rare type of sad act who will care about EoFF after not having paid it any mind for two years. xD

---

*looks at Pike*

He did say rare. Though I wonder how rare the sad act who still cares after being gone for years and then becomes staff is.