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 love 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.