Printable View
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
That might be an interesting idea. Gives us something to do, at least.
It would at least make for interesting staff discussions.
[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.
Oh, but we do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yamaneko
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.
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.
"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.
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. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by ShlupQuack
Yeah, he'd get a couple more years for more recent bad behaviors. Haha.
If there is a group for drunk posting, why aren't I in it? :pQuote:
Originally Posted by Raistlin
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by ShlupQuack
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.
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.Quote:
The constant trouble in deciding what is temp-ban worthy and what is perma-ban worthy.
Send them a message when they get temp-banned or when they come back: you're on probation, and if you do anything else, you're banned. No questions.Quote:
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.
...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.Quote:
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.
How long has it been since Greg was banned? :D
I don't think he'd come back even if we'd let him. :(
Especially since he hasn't even been online in months. ;_;